Serving King Grassley

Via Sadly, No comes an atrocious Washington Post article on Grassley, Boehner and the Republicans on health care. Check out the whole thing, but this will give you the flavor of the piece:

Key Senator Calls for Narrower Health Reform Measure
Republican Grassley Cites Town Hall Anger

By Lori Montgomery and Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, August 20, 2009

Sen. Charles E. Grassley, a key Republican negotiator in the quest for bipartisan health-care reform, said Wednesday that the outpouring of anger at town hall meetings this month has fundamentally altered the nature of the debate and convinced him that lawmakers should consider drastically scaling back the scope of the effort.

After being besieged by protesters at meetings across his home state of Iowa, Grassley said he has concluded that the public has rejected the far-reaching proposals Democrats have put on the table, viewing them as overly expensive precursors to "a government takeover of health care."

Grassley said he remains hopeful that he and five other members of the Senate Finance Committee can draft a better, less costly plan capable of winning broad support from Democrats and Republicans. But as the group, known as the Gang of Six, prepared to continue talking via teleconference late Thursday, Grassley said the members may be forced to reassess the breadth of their efforts in light of public concerns.

"Not just on health care, but on a lot of other things Congress has done this year, people are signaling that we ought to slow up and find out where we are and don't spend so much money and don't get us so far into debt," he said in a telephone interview between stops in Iowa Falls and Ames, where he has been leading foreign diplomats on a week-long tour of the state. The Finance Committee group is still discussing a "comprehensive" plan for extending coverage to millions of uninsured families, he said, but revisiting that approach would be "a natural outcome of what people may be getting from the town hall meetings."

As the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, Grassley has the potential to attract GOP votes by giving his blessing to a bill, and congressional Democrats and the White House consider him the key to winning bipartisan support for President Obama's top domestic priority. In recent days, however, some Democrats have accused Grassley of trying to undermine the reform effort, for example by refusing to debunk rumors that the Democratic health bills would create "death panels" empowered to decide whether the infirm live or die.

On Wednesday, he denied those claims and fired back at Obama, saying the president should publicly state his willingness to sign a bill without a controversial government-run insurance plan. Such a statement, he said, is "pretty important . . . if you're really interested in a bipartisan bill."

"It's not about getting a lot of Republicans. It's about getting a lot of Democrats and Republicans," Grassley said. "We ought to be focusing on getting 80 votes."

On Wednesday, Grassley made clear that he remains committed to pursuing a health-care bill, provided it does not "make things worse" for people who are happy with their insurance or add to swollen budget deficits. His remarks echoed those of other key Republicans -- including Sens. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) and Mike Enzi (Wyo.), the other GOP negotiators on the finance panel -- as well as some Democrats, who are quietly urging Obama and congressional leaders to lower their expectations for what can be accomplished this year in the interest of building momentum for future reform.

We must give the reasonable Lord Grassley his way! (Later on, Boehner accuses Obama and the Democrats of refusing to work with them.)

Goddam, this article is obtuse and ridiculously credulous. Grassley wasn't just pressed to debunk death panel rumors. He was asked to repudiate them and perhaps apologize. That's because he was spreading them, as in telling his constituents, "…You have every right to fear… . We should not have a government program that determines if you're going to pull the plug on grandma." That was before he called the death panel propaganda he's been pimping "nothing more than a distortion coming from far-left," and pivoted to attack Pelosi and other Democrats. Grassley has said he probably won't support his own bill even if he gets everything he wants from it. Meanwhile, he and other Republicans have floated their 80 vote bullshit earlier in the year – it's funny how the same rules never apply to Republicans in power.

It's appalling that Montgomery and Bacon actually present Grassley, Boehner and the gang as acting in good faith and never question it. If these reporters are too gutless to call them out, they could at least find a Democrat or pundit who isn't. (That's how it's often done.) But at the least, they could note Grassley's many other public statements and how they directly undermine his credibility. By not doing that, they deny their readers essential context. There's plenty to be found from the New York Times, MSNBC, Steve Benen, the Huffington Post, Media Matters and other outlets. (Hell, Doonesbury ran the "distortion of the far left" line as its featured quotation.) Matthew Yglesias comments on the same article and points out the super-supermajority idiocy, but that's but one angle the article could have taken. How about a poll of Grassley's constituents and their views? How about a poll of their views before and after he worked to scare them? How about national polls and support for the public option, or a discussion of what policies might actually work well? How about some recognition that Grassley's one senator in the minority party representing an extremely small state? How about pushing him to defend his claims? What about at least focusing on Grassley himself? The WaPo article is sorta like guilelessly quoting an arsonist who's blaming someone else for burning the house down when he's standing there with an empty gas can and the other news stations have been running footage of him torching the place. Glaring contradictions, hypocrisy, suspect claims and possibly outright lies by the subject of the piece are somehow not relevant, not newsworthy, and don't make a good headline?

It's highly unlikely Montgomery and Bacon were unaware of the high bullshit factor to Grassley's claims. The only values in writing a story like this versus a more accurate and skeptical one are a) not pissing off Republicans, and b) helping sink health care reform. Given the conspicuous omissions, this article doesn't even rise to the level of stenography. It's more of a Republican press release.

My favorite bit is probably their shilling of Grassley's tale of suddenly opposing health care reform based on the feedback of constituents (after he's lied to them). It made me start thinking of analogies:

After consulting with the American people, Joseph McCarthy is convinced Edward Murrow is a dirty commie.

After many town halls, John McCain is convinced that the American people really wanted him to be president last November.

After shilling an argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care, Jonah Goldberg is convinced that liberals are the real fascists. (Also, that he is brilliant.)

After a careful examination of her own butt after tequila shots, Pam Atlas is convinced that Barack Obama is Malcolm X's love child - and born in Kenya.

After an exhaustive search for the real killers, O.J. Simpson is convinced of his own innocence.

Make your own…

As DDay and others have noted, "The only way you can really get to a Max Baucus or a Charles Grassley is by threatening their job security." The Democrats can strip Baucus of his chairmanship, and Grassley is up for re-election next year. A strong Democratic challenger could do for Grassley what conscience and basic shame have not.

Stop Torturing Rush

Bob Cesca writes that:

Senator John Cornyn -- "Big John" -- is circulating a petition demanding that the Obama administration come clean about its "conspiracy" to smear Rush Limbaugh.

Seriously.

President Obama owes the American people an explanation.

His staff should apologize to the American people for supporting these tactics and diverting attention to the hard work that needs to be done to get America’s economy back on track.

Please join me in signing this petition and calling on the Obama White House to come clean on this matter.

For the full text of Cornyn's letter about this "outrage," go to Ben Smith's blog at Politico. (The Cesca link comes via John Amato, who also made a "Leave Rush Alone!" video.)

If you're keeping track, this builds on the "Suck-up to Rush" movement by the Republican party, the op-ed by John Boehner claiming Rush is being persecuted as a distraction, and the GOP talking point spread by Ari Fleischer and others that Obama has betrayed his words about a more mature approach to government - by responding to Rush Limbaugh.

This would also be the same John Cornyn who opposes a Truth Commission to look into torture and prisoner abuses by the Bush administration. NPR did a short piece on that, and the AP ran with Cornyn's key sound bite: "The idea that this so-called Truth Commission would somehow resolve the good-faith disagreements ... is just asking us to believe in the tooth fairy."

Cornyn also issued a formal statement:

I oppose the creation of a so-called ‘truth commission’ because it is a redundant and politically divisive exercise that would distract the Executive, Congress, and the American people at a time when we should be focused on reinvigorating our economy and winning the war on terror. This roving, unaccountable inquisition into each and every grievance with a Bush Administration policy is a backward-looking proposition that is directly at odds with President Obama’s stated goals of unity and moving forward...

The proposed ‘truth commission’ would do little more than duplicate years of congressional oversight—not to mention the numerous Executive Branch investigations and related litigation, investigation and prosecution.

I believe that reasonable-minded proponents of this legislation will digest these facts and numbers and conclude, as I have, that Congress has done anything but shirk its responsibility to perform oversight over the past eight years...

President Obama has stated that he is more interested in looking forward than looking back. I would urge my colleagues on the other side to consider the precedent that would be set by creating such a commission—and what it implicitly says about the institutional competence of Congress. Now is not the time for government to waste more of taxpayers’ money by outsourcing a core congressional responsibility.

Read the full piece for fuller context. Cornyn's fellow Republican Arlen Specter favors a Justice Department investigation and possible criminal prosecutions (Specter and other Republicans may be counting on the Democrats not having the stomach for it, as usual). Cornyn claims he supports Congress investigating, but that doesn't square with his arguments that Congress provided adequate oversight of the Bush administration, his claims of "good faith," and the notion that it's important to 'look forward and not back.' Seriously, who exactly buys that Cornyn wants any further investigations at all, by anyone, or welcomes criminal charges for any and all guilty persons? The idea that any of the decisions made to torture, abuse and indefinitely detain prisoners were "good faith" disagreements is particularly laughable with the "ignore all warnings, proceed in secret" Bush administration approach described in Angler, The Dark Side and other sources.

Cornyn speaks of "distractions" and blames Obama regarding both Limbaugh and a Truth Commission. However, the bottom line is Conryn doesn't want any of his buddies held accountable for torture, but wants Obama to pay a price for responding to Rush Limbaugh's attacks. Cornyn has previously tried to defend water-boarding. Apparently, torture is not an "outrage," but replying to Limbaugh's partisan attacks is. That's a pretty fucked-up moral compass.

Unsurprisingly, Cornyn doesn't mention the "nine previously secret legal opinions" of the Bush administration which claimed they could suspend the Constitution and the president had all the unchecked, absolute powers of a dictator. He doesn't say anything about the conclusions of the bipartisan Senate report on the abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody, which indicate that further investigation and probably criminal investigations should proceed.

On economic matters, Cornyn is pretending, like many conservatives (and many in the media), that somehow, the 'change in Washington' chosen by the American people in November didn't mean a change in policy, in governance, and who gets to set the agenda. Republican policies have been disastrous, yet Cornyn and his party are still defending almost 30 years of the Reaganomics model of "starving the beast," doubling the national debt, deregulating everything possible, increasing defense spending and waging class warfare on the poor and middle class to give still more money to the richest Americans. Check out DDay, Jamison Foser, Eric Martin 1, Eric Martin 2 and John Cole, among others. Or let's turn it over to Paul Krugman, commenting on Cornyn's fellow Republican John Boehner, who continued to complain about Rush Limbaugh's treatment while offering more crappy policies:

I’m as cynical as they come. Even so, I’m shocked by the total intellectual collapse of the Republican Party in the face of this economic crisis.

I suggested a little while ago that the GOP has become the party of Beavis and Butthead, reduced to snickering at line items in legislation that sound funny. And we’re not just talking about the usual crazies: we’re taking about Saint John McCain, cracking jokes about “Mormon crickets” and “beaver management” when a minute or two on Google reveals that these are, in fact, serious issues.

But it’s getting truly serious when the House minority leader [John Boehner] — essentially, the nation’s second-ranking Republican (after Rush Limbaugh) — declares that the answer to the economy’s downward spiral is a spending freeze. That’s not a retrogression to Herbert Hoover; even Hoover knew better than that.

I’d really like to see some genuine bipartisanship in America. But that can’t happen until we start having at least somewhat sane partisans.

On the intellectual and policy front – the Republican party apparently can't provide a single figure who can make an argument without lying, gross distortion, immaturity or insanity. Bobby Jindal's train wreck of a speech was merely the most prominent and worthy of mockery, but while his delivery was poor, it was the shallow, disingenuous content that was the bigger problem. And what about Rush Limbaugh? Are we supposed to believe all of sudden that Limbaugh argues anything in good faith and factually? Rush Limbaugh is horrible person, who shills the Reagan myth and constantly lies and offers bullshit.

Why does their party warrant any respect whatsoever? Has the Republican party ever not thrown a temper tantrum over not getting everything their way during the past twenty years? And somehow, pointing out the Republican obstructionism exemplified by Rush Limbaugh is a "distraction," and breaking with a "spirit of unity," but GOP attacks and obstructionism aren't? This is a very old conservative game, from Ann Coulter to the current hacks – Republicans argue they should be allowed to say anything they want, no matter how outrageous or inaccurate, but if Democrats respond, they're intolerant or prickly. Even if Republicans are out of power and their policies and leadership have been repudiated, somehow they should get to run the show. Their response to our war of choice in Iraq, our torture and detention policies, and the current economic crisis show there is simply no situation too dire or important for them to drop the bullshit and act for the greater good of the country.

I wish that wasn't the case, but it is. And I have little to no patience for the cognitive dissonance or hackery of our media figures, who pretend the GOP should somehow be taken seriously no matter what crap they offer. Even worse, the press often takes the GOP side. We currently have yet another round of millionaire journalists complaining about Obama raising their taxes and ignoring the benefits of his plans for the middle class, all the while pretending to be objective. It would be wonderful if sane, honest, intelligent Republicans could take their party over. (It'd be great to have an honest, responsible press corps, too.) The Democratic leadership certainly isn't stellar, and Timothy Geithner's approach to economic recovery for the Obama administration is far too invested in protecting power for the greedy incompetents who created this mess in the first place. Still, the Democrats at least occasionally do something positive. John Cornyn, John Boehner and the Republican leadership are using their power to try to shut down any investigation of or accountability for one of the most shameful affairs in our nation's history, the torture and abuse of prisoners in our care. Meanwhile, they're going to great lengths to suck up to, and defend, one of the vilest hacks in the nation, a man who like them wants the Obama administration to fail so the Republicans can retake power - and inevitably screw things up even further. I hope moral outrage fatigue is not so pronounced among people of conscience that these scoundrels are robbed of the utter contempt they deserve.

(Cross-posted at Blue Herald)

Take the GOP Talking Point Quiz!

You've seen Howard Kurtz cheerlead "the Surge" in defiance of the facts. You've seen him cover for Michelle Malkin's campaign of hatred against a severely-injured 12-year old boy. You've seen him quote Malkin to push a false equivalency about hatred on the left and continue to ignore the eliminationist rhetoric commonplace on the right. You've seen him write a puff piece on Malkin. Oh, then there's all the Obama non-scandal scandals that could have been made into a bigger deal. So here's a little quiz. How many right-wing talking points can you spot in his write-up on Barack Obama's infomercial?

It was like a well-produced "60 Minutes" report on the struggling middle class, if those who are struggling all happened to live in swing states. Call it "30 Minutes."

Obama did the voice-over, playing the role of correspondent, and the goal, of course, was to intertwine his personal story with the difficulties and aspirations of ordinary Americans whose votes he needs to put him over the top.

The Obama infomercial last night began in a faux Oval Office -- the desk, the tree behind the windows, the flag pin on the man who once disdained them -- that to my eye seemed a tad presumptuous. It was, naturally, designed to get you to envision him as the 44th president.

The mini-portraits -- the injured tire worker in Missouri, the retired railroad worker in Ohio, the widow with two jobs in New Mexico, the teacher in Colorado, the auto worker in Kentucky -- were polished and, at times, quite moving. Obama wants it known that he is fighting for them.

What also worked was depicting Barack in people's living rooms, talking about what he wants to do for them. (Although how did the tax cuts suddenly move down from people earning $250,000 to those at 200K?)

What didn't work were the brief tributes by senators and governors -- who might as well have been touting the slice-o-matic -- and the snippets of Obama's Greek column convention speech. We've already seen that, and it was out of sync with the tone of the ad.

Which brings me to the final three minutes. The idea of moving from the safety of a videotape to a live event was inspired. But doing it in a cheering Florida stadium with Obama going to the overblown rhetoric and vowing to "change the world," not so much. The whole idea of the show was to bring Obama down from the clouds and into the street. The big rally came close to canceling out the man-of-the-people image so carefully constructed in the previous 27 minutes.

Still, the show was on CBS, NBC, Fox and four other networks -- the biggest such splash since Ross Perot's pie charts -- and it probably helped at the margins. Even if it didn't, I don't get some of the advance criticism that the show would boomerang because of its excessive nature. No one had to watch. They could always switch over to "Pushing Daisies" on ABC.

If the press were inclined to hammer the Democratic nominee for buying the election after blowing off public financing, the infomercial would be Exhibit A. But the press is giving him a pass on the issue.

One other observation: Has Obama been watching too many Palin speeches? He kept talking about "workin' families" and was in full g-dropping mode.

How many GOP talking points did you spot? I see at least four. In paragraph 3, Kurtz writes about a "faux Oval Office." Other commentators did as well, which I suppose is fine, although you'll notice it's all brown wood versus the white of the Oval Office, and I don't think appearing in an office is the slightest bit remarkable for a political ad. But Kurtz calls this move "a tad presumptuous." Gosh, we've never heard that one before, have we? It's awfully "presumptuous" for Obama to think he might actually be elected somehow? Kurtz also accuses Obama of 'disdaining' wearing a flag pin. This is a common right-wing talking point, and Kurtz repeating it is unconscionable bullshit. After the flag pin idiocy was finally pretty much dead back in July, Kurtz repeated the smear by agreeing with a disingenuous National Review piece that resurrected it yet again. At the time, rather than blogging about it, I actually wrote Kurtz a detailed e-mail with links (such as this one) debunking the claims. He never replied, and that's fine. But he really, really should know better. At best, it's a contentious charge that shouldn't be presented as fact, but the truth is it's an ugly smear. Yet he clearly has no compunctions about tossing it off, facts be damned.

In paragraph 5, Kurtz expresses confusion about Obama's tax plan. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Sarah Palin and other McCain surrogates have been making this attack for the past week or so. Seriously, how can Kurtz possibly be ignorant on this subject? Biden did make a misstatement within the past two weeks his critics seized upon, but the campaign immediately corrected it, and it's not as if Obama's tax policies are some big secret. Obama's described them in at least two debates, and his nomination speech, among other places. (Update: Per CNN, Biden didn't even really misspeak, unless we define "misspeak" as "saying something accurate that an opponent can quote in misleading way." McCain's just lying.) Here's one chart that explains the Obama-McCain differences, and a Hilzoy post that goes in more depth. Basically, Obama is raising taxes on folks making over $250,000 a year. Those making between $200,000 and $250,000 will not see their tax rate move much at all. Those making less than $200,000 will see a tax break – and it's a larger break under Obama than McCain, who is giving bigger breaks to the wealthiest Americans (like his wife) than even George Bush did. Thus, as Obama has often said, roughly 95% of Americans will not see their taxes go up under an Obama presidency, and most of that number will see a tax break. Seriously, how could Kurtz not know this, or not research it to refresh his memory? Does Kurtz just have a crappy memory, does he not want to do research to solve his confusion, or does he just take most of his cues from Republicans attacking Obama?

In paragraph 6, I'd say Obama's decision to cut to his nomination speech was an effective choice. It reminded people of the power of the speech, and it reinforced that he's been saying this stuff for a while now. Kurtz is free to disagree on that. But mentioning the Greek columns is just pathetic. As you may remember, right-wing blogs were obsessed with this, even though Bush accepted his nomination in 2004 in front of Greek columns. Apparently Kurtz missed the many mentions of that hypocrisy on liberal blogs and establishment outlets such as The Politico, or the terms "nomination speech" or "convention speech" just didn't appeal to him.

As to the public financing charge, while it's a conservative talking point, it's a fair criticism up to a point. Still, Kurtz has never to my knowledge pointed out that McCain has violated campaign finance laws (Talking Points Memo, a blog Kurtz typically reads, has done numerous posts and at least one video on this subject). I don't remember Kurtz hammering the Republican Party for its massive spending advantage in 2004, or criticizing how the GOP hit Kerry with the Swift-Boat ads at a point in the campaign cycle when Kerry's funds were curtailed by finance laws. Kurtz buds Mark Halperin and John Harris wrote a whole book extolling the virtue of Rove's sleazy, win-at-any-cost, bigger war chest brand of politics. Now, Kurtz isn't too blame for their book, of course, but he shares many of their views, and the whole gang are pretty selective when it comes to fairness.
Kurtz is entitled to his other opinions. The Florida rally wasn't live out here in California, so its special nature was lost on me. I don't have an issue with the old speeches and the new rally being intercut with the informercial stuff, which also intercut Obama speaking directly to the American people, mini-docs on families, and Obama listening to and talking to American citizens. But hey, Kurtz is free to feel differently.

All that said, if Kurtz isn't aware of what he's shilling, boy, he's been duped, and if he is aware, it's even more shameful. I think it's a mixture of both. In any case, while Kurtz has his moments, his blog's main virtue is as a conservative blog round-up, but Kurtz still affects a persona of being fair and balanced, ample evidence to the contrary. Once again, he's adopted a right-wing framing and legitimizes bullshit.

(Oh, and Pushing Daisies is a good show, but I don't think even Ned could resurrect McCain's campaign at this point.)

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Obama VP Drama

Silly or asinine coverage is nothing new, but I was struck last night by a few mind-numbing passages in Obama-VP pieces. Those concerns have been eclipsed by Ron Fournier's AP hit piece today, though. Still, there's a continuity in that the press continues to insert themselves into the story, and for the ill.

First up, let's look at this one from The Politico, running on Yahoo:

Obama's striptease may be risky

Fred Barbash
Fri Aug 22, 7:08 PM ET

In dragging out the announcement of his vice presidential nominee to almost the eve of the Democratic National Convention, Barack Obama has at once demonstrated his willingness to defy conventional political expectations — and to hold the news media in his thrall while doing it.

By keeping the “who will it be?” drama going all week — and at least a couple days past when many media commentators and political operatives thought the answer would become known — Obama discarded a widespread belief in political circles that a vice president should be picked far enough in advance that a nominee can enjoy several days of massive publicity about the ticket.

Delay brings two potential risks for Obama.

As it now stands, his announcement will land on a weekend and bleed right into the nominating convention — a time when a nominee can already expect to be dominating national attention.

What’s more, by keeping expectations hanging for so long, Obama makes it harder to deliver on all the anticipation. A weeks-long strip tease, ending with a naked Joe Biden or Evan Bayh — or some other safe but unsexy choice — might prove deflating.

It goes on. I don't know whether Barbash or his editor came up with article title – I suspect Barbash, based on the fifth paragraph - but "striptease"? They're comparing the Democratic presidential candidate to a stripper now? Nothing against strippers, but it's a rather odd comparison.

Read that second paragraph again. There's a bit of pissy threat in there, I think: 'Obama's defied conventional wisdom and the will of the press corps, and we might make him pay for it.'

"Dominating," "anticipation," "strip tease," "naked Joe Biden" "safe but unsexy," "deflating"... Is this a political analysis piece, or a Viagra ad? There's nothing wrong with having a little fun, but our political press corps is disturbingly sex-obssessed in their attitudes toward politicians. I really don't care about what reporters do in the personal lives but it'd be nice if a political non-story wasn't covered through the lens of their sexual frustration.

The piece overall is exactly that – a non-story. It's not entirely horrible as such pieces go and I imagine they just wanted or needed to file copy. But Obama hadn't announced yet, and there was no actual news - never mind that Obama would announce soon enough and there would be. So on the Friday night before the announcement, The Politico churned out a process story about the lack of news (make that a momentary lack of news) and its great significance... to their libidos. Yikes. Normally I'd call this masturbatory coverage, but given the frustration angle, in this case that would be slightly inaccurate.

On to our second piece, "Obama taps Biden to be running mate," by the AP's Liz Sidoti and Nedra Pickler, which contains this gem about the Obama text message being scooped by the press:

Michael Silberman, a partner at online communications firm EchoDitto, said the campaign gambled when they made such a high-stakes promise and find themselves in a precarious situation where they could risk a great deal of trust with supporters.

"For Obama supporters, this is like finding out from your neighbor instead of your sister that she's engaged — not how you want or expect the news to be delivered," Silberman said.

You have to be friggin' kidding me. To be fair, the AP piece is decent overall, and this section appears quite late in it. Maybe Silberman said a bunch of brilliant things that didn't make the piece, but this take strikes me as pretty ridiculous, without legitimate journalistic value. Obama was a stripper in the first piece, and now Obama supporters are emotionally fragile family members. I've read accounts from a few Obama supporters who expressed disappointment, although in at least one case it was because the message didn't go through, probably due to overloaded circuits (network activity was at 225% of normal according to one piece). I've yet to see any Obama supporter say anything approaching, "I used to trust Obama, but now that despite his best efforts the press leaked his pick a few hours early so the west coast found out about it before I did, I don't know how I can every trust him again!!!" Even if Obama supporters were somehow that emotionally distraught, in this account reporters' own glaring culpability is completely absolved! They destroyed the event for some people, Obama didn't! E.J. Dionne correctly noted on NPR on Friday the high degree of discipline the Obama campaign had shown on the matter. The press squawking over the harm done by their own leak is like a burglar chiding his victims: "Despite their alarms and the safe, I was able to rob the family's jewelry. I'm just not sure I can ever feel safe in their house again."

I'm really hoping this idiotic meme doesn't spread too far, although DDay spotted another instance and had a similar reaction:

Setting aside the merits of Joe Biden for a second (short take: he fits the traditional attack-dog model of a Vice President to a T), late last night as the news nets were announcing the pick David Shuster said something like "Barack Obama has now betrayed his supporters by not giving them the first opportunity to hear his choice..."

Simply an amazing statement on a variety of levels. Actually, who betrayed the public is you, the media, again, because you just couldn't stand not being insiders for ten minutes and waiting out the pick and maybe using those resources of staking out potential candidates' homes and working the phones on, I don't know, illegal wars and torture. The press only breaks out their investigative skills every four years so they can scoop their competition by 20 seconds. Would it have killed them to embargo the story and let the campaign play it out the way they wanted? Would it have mattered to anyone?

This secret was so tantalizing to them, making it necessary to marshal the full resources of the American media, while eight years of secret government and secret law received no such attention. The discovery of the pick was an end in itself, justifying their clubby, insider self-images as the coolest kids in the room. And then, after they've undermined the rollout, they blame the candidate.

It's going to get lost because it happened so late at night, but it was a shining example of how the media works.

Again, for the press, the press often is the story. They were jilted. They didn't get what they wanted when they wanted it, an advance look at the prime gossip (and for some, a dose of Viagra). And they shall have vengeance for it!

And lo, their agent of vengeance shall ride a pale horse, and his name shall be Ron Fournier of the AP:

Analysis: Biden pick shows lack of confidence

By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press Writer
Sat Aug 23, 2:12 AM ET

DENVER - The candidate of change went with the status quo.

In picking Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate, Barack Obama sought to shore up his weakness — inexperience in office and on foreign policy — rather than underscore his strength as a new-generation candidate defying political conventions.

In picking Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate, Barack Obama sought to shore up his weakness — inexperience in office and on foreign policy — rather than underscore his strength as a new-generation candidate defying political conventions.

He picked a 35-year veteran of the Senate — the ultimate insider — rather than a candidate from outside Washington, such as Govs. Tim Kaine of Virginia or Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas; or from outside his party, such as Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska; or from outside the mostly white male club of vice presidential candidates. Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't even make his short list.

The picks say something profound about Obama: For all his self-confidence, the 47-year-old Illinois senator worried that he couldn't beat Republican John McCain without help from a seasoned politician willing to attack. The Biden pick is the next logistical step in an Obama campaign that has become more negative — a strategic decision that may be necessary but threatens to run counter to his image.

Democratic strategists, fretting over polls that showed McCain erasing Obama's lead this summer, welcomed the move. They, too, worried that Obama needed a more conventional — read: tougher — approach to McCain...

So the question is whether Biden's depth counters Obama's inexperience — or highlights it?

Do read the rest if you can stand it, but that's probably my favorite bit, the last sentence of this excerpt, Fournier pretending to ask a question after he's just spent ten paragraphs and a headline giving us his answer.

Clinton did make Obama's short list by many accounts, depending on how "short" one's making it, and Obama's repeatedly praised her, but Fournier's trying to sell the idea that Obama has shown her disrespect. (Vote McCain, Clinton diehards!) It's also pretty funny that Fournier, given his GOP ties, is smacking Obama around for choosing from the "white male club." I guess Obama's campaign just isn't historic enough for Fournier on its own; yet again, Obama's either too scary or just not black enough for some white guy.

The other pieces may be annoying in parts, but it's hacks like Fournier that really endanger the Obama campaign. You've probably seen Eric Boehlert's piece on Fournier, that the McCain campaign tried to hire Fornier, and he praised the Bush administration in flowery language in e-mails to Karl Rove. You may know that the decline of the AP directly corresponds to Fournier's rise in power there. And while Fournier is biased and unfair, he's on the presidential beat for the AP. It's ridiculous. If he were just another hack like Krauthammer writing sneering op-eds, it wouldn't be quite so bad, but he's pretending to be an actual, somewhat objective journalist.

Steve Benen and Digby have pieces on the Fournier piece, Crooks and Liars' piece has contact information for complaining to the AP, and FireDogLake has set up a way to write your local papers about carrying Fournier. An avalanche of "polite but firm" e-mails would be great.

Let's be honest – regardless of who Obama picked, Fournier was going to write a hit piece. He quotes a few Democrats to give him cover, but the key message he's trying to sell is the same one the GOP has been trying to sell for over a month now: Obama is scared of McCain, and he's weak. It's bullshit, of course, but the GOP can only win if they can obscure how lockstep McCain has been with Bush, and make the election a referendum on Obama. We're going to see a lot more of this crap, and the more we can push back on it, the better.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

And Another Factor

Speaking of ignored scandals, consider this Josh Marshall observation:

David Gregory speculates that the Edwards' affair may be bad news for Obama. I have a very hard time seeing how Edwards' affair reflects on Obama. What I do know is that this is another of those cases where there is a tacit but uniform agreement among pretty much all reporters and close campaign watchers not to publicly state the obvious: that this is a perilous development for John McCain. Just as Bill Clinton's public undressing in the Lewinsky scandal led indirectly to the exposure of several high-profile Republican affairs, Edwards' revelation will inevitably put pressure on the press in general to scrutinize John McCain under something more searching than the JFK rules they've applied to date. I assure you that this dimension of the story occurred to every reporter even tangentially involved in reporting this race soon after the Edwards story hit yesterday afternoon.

In the Digby post I linked before, she also mentioned Vicki Iserman, and noted:

I personally don't care who and of these people are sleeping with (especially McCain). Marriage is a very complicated institution and I don't pass judgment on how others conduct theirs. I think this is all bullshit. But if the media has decided that even a failed politician who has no chance at the presidency can be subject to this kind of scrutiny, then they need to be a little bit more vigilant about pursuing someone who is the nominee of his party and has been very publicly linked to a specific woman by the paper of record, not the National Enquirer. If these are the rules, then this guy is a far more likely subject of scrutiny than Edwards.

Update: I just heard Barnicle say on Hardball that it was only "a matter of time before they ask Barack Obama and McCain --- well McCain's talked about his past --- Barack Obama, if he's ever had an affair." IOKIYAJM.

"IOKIYAJM" (It's okay if you are John McCain) alone is a keeper. I'd much prefer substantial coverage of real issues and legitimate scandals, but to be really cynical for a moment, perhaps equal coverage of shallow affairs is the highest standard our press corps can achieve.

(Much more on John McCain and his coverage in later posts, since those were already on the docket...)

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Broder Implications

We have some great political reporters in America. We also have a large number of vapid, shallow, gossipy twits, with the percentage going way up among TV journalists (and even higher among cable TV journalists). No offense to the good reporters, but there are times that I despise our political press corps as a whole with the heat of, well, maybe not a thousand suns, but a solid nine hundred. Now is such a time.

For a while now, David Gregory has been trumpeting alarm over Obama's prospects with little cause, often uncritically repeating Republican talking points to do so. Still, trying to tag the Edwards affair on Obama is quite a stretch and a new low. As Media Matters reports, on Friday, 8/8/08, Gregory said:

"Tonight, more on Edwards and the fallout from his admission today about a sexual affair: Is this another skeleton in the Democratic closet that Barack Obama must struggle to overcome?" Gregory also said that, "now, questions about his [Edwards'] future abound in the party and whether this creates another shadow over Barack Obama as he gets ready for the conventions."

Of course the Edwards affair is going to be covered. But this treatment is weak, insipid stuff worthy of the sex-obsessed David Broder or Maureen Dowd, and sure seems to be an attempt to try to justify covering a tabloid story as legitimate campaign news, when of course it isn't. Meanwhile, it just happens to smear the entire Democratic Party and their nominee. Gregory's approach is symptomatic of a wider problem.

It's funny, because for just one example, during the Mark Foley scandal, the press sure covered it, but I don't remember many of them pointing out the legitimate issues absent with Edwards: that Foley was abusing power since he had been overseeing pages he was hitting on, that the Republican leadership knew about this and did nothing, and that Dennis Hastert and his office issued contradictory lies in rapid succession. Most of all, I don't remember the press dwelling on the scandal as indicative of widespread corruption in the Republican party (although for some voters, it was the final straw).

In reaction to Gregory, John Amato came up with a good list of his own:

From the email inbox:

David Gregory just said young people were inspired by him and are let down…and questioned whether it will have “broader implications for the party.” during the election. This week, Ron Suskind’s book revealed the Bush team knew Iraq didn’t have WMD, forged letters, paid hush money, and lied us into war. (Chirp, chirp…) Any broader implications for the Republican party there? How about instead of us buying into all the clamoring to analyze Edwards betrayal (wait, no, BETRAYAL!) we analyze the absurdity of a media culture where THIS is what passes for holding politicians accountable.

Broader implication for the party. OK, let’s talk party.

McClellan said that FOX News got talking points from the White House

Bush authorized rendition.

Bush authorized torture. Yes, that means waterboarding.

Bush authorized a war based on lies resulting in millions of innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilian deaths as well as an ethnic cleansing.

Thousands of our troops have been killed or seriously injured.

The US dollar is in the tank.

The housing/mortgage crisis has almost caused a depression.

How about the trampling of our Constitution with warrantless wiretapping?

Laptops are being confiscated at airports and the border.

Under Bush, oil companies are raking in record profits while Americans suffer.

The US attorney scandal.

A health care epidemic.

Monica Goodling

A standing ovation in Congress for David Vitter’s return.

Military TV Analysts/Generals scandal.

Larry Craig’s bathroom adventure.

And many, many more.

Would any of this have “broader implications” to the Republican party during the election if the media did its job?

Newt Gingrich STILL gets on TV every other day and everyone KNOWS he had affairs, even dumping his wife right after cancer surgery. And yet all these MSM types are wringing their hands about what this means to the Democratic Party. Ridiculous. Throw a stone in DC and try not to hit some one with a little something on the side, and that includes those in the press corps.

And they have the nerve to talk about betrayal of Edwards to the media and his wife — in that order. Why aren’t they more outraged about the betrayal of the White House to get us into a war?

What screwed up priorities.

Let's see, then there's bourgeois concern troll Cokie Roberts attacking Obama for spending a brief vacation in Hawaii where he grew up and where his grandmother lives versus going to Myrtle Beach. There's Fred Hiatt's selective quoting to claim that the Bush administration didn't lie in making its case for war, a claim so blatantly divorced from reality he should have been fired or put on leave immediately. There's Richard Cohen and other hawks still claiming they had it right on Iraq, and Broder and Cohen justifying McCain's reversals (repeatedly), with Cohen even asserting that McCain's stint as a P.O.W. makes it all excusable.

Moving to the "Dean of the Press Corps" Broder alone, his most recent column, "Rivals in Search of Trust," examines whether Obama and McCain like each other .(Who gives a shit? It might be of some interest, but Broder won't cover their policy differences.) Meanwhile his piece before that argues that McCain's been forced to go negative against Obama against his will because he hasn't been getting coverage through town hall debates, or some such bullshit. Earlier this year, Broder argued that the key difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates was a lack of executive experience on the part of the Democrats, implicitly arguing that the massive differences between their policies were irrelevant. (But then, Broder always seems to come up with novel ideas for why you shouldn't vote for a Democrat.) Broder also wrote about the Clinton marriage less than a month after saying he wouldn't. Perhaps worst of all, Broder's also claimed that most of the public doesn't care about the Bush administration's pre-war lies, ignoring evidence to the contrary, and still asserts that Clinton should have resigned for office over his affair, but that Bush shouldn't be impeached. That really says it all about his intellect, perception and moral compass. What screwed up priorities, indeed.

It's no surprise the Edwards affair is being covered. I don't begrudge that. But sadly, it's also little surprise that Gregory would cover it in such ridiculous fashion, since our so-called "liberal" corporate press has a long pattern of such "reporting." It's galling enough to think that these people possess positions of power and are paid large sums of money despite being twits, but even more galling to realize they possess positions of power and are paid large sums of money to be twits. Even so, that would be merely annoying if it weren't for the dire consequences these people have enabled and in some cases the horrendous policies they've advocated for. There are reporters who do feel differently than Broder, Gregory, Dowd, Cohen, Cokie Roberts and their ilk, but it's that crowd who dictate the Beltway chattering class' conventional wisdom, which is almost unfailingly shallow and off the mark. No respect is due to people who still have no real problem with a war of choice, with lying to the public to start a war, with war profiteering, with unprecedented fiscal mismanagement, with spying on Americans without a warrant, with holding innocents for years without charges, with torturing people, and myriad of other assaults on core American values. As HTML Mencken puts it, they care about incivility, but not indecency. As many liberal bloggers have put it in various words (including Blue Gal, Driftglass, Thers, Digby, Atrios), they obsess about obscene language but are very accepting or even defensive about obscene actions. It would also be nice if this crew at least actually tried to justify their positions with, y'know, facts, or a coherent argument, versus merely asserting le droit de seigneur. If I or other bloggers occasionally despise this crew, it's because they are, in fact, despicable. They'll continue to stay mute about blatant villainy, unnecessary death and torture, but fuck someone without their permission, and their goddam heads explode.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Lovable Saint McCain

Via Howard Kurtz, actually, here's one of the best pieces I've read recently on McCain. It's from Kevin Drum on 3/24, and I'll quote it in its entirety:

McCAIN'S CRED.... Via Steve Benen, MSNBC analyst Chuck Todd tells us why John McCain can get away with routine demonstrations of abject ignorance, like his recent proclamation that Iran is supporting al-Qaeda in Iraq:

Even if he gets dinged on the experience stuff, "Oh, he says he's Mr. Experience. Doesn't he know the difference between this stuff?" He's got enough of that in the bank, at least with the media, that he can get away with it. I mean, the irony to this is had either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama misspoke like that, it'd have been on a running loop, and it would become a, a big problem for a couple of days for them.

Italics mine. Let's recap. Foreign policy cred lets him get away with wild howlers on foreign policy. Fiscal integrity cred lets him get away with outlandishly irresponsible economic plans. Anti-lobbyist cred lets him get away with pandering to lobbyists. Campaign finance reform cred lets him get away with gaming the campaign finance system. Straight talking cred lets him get away with brutally slandering Mitt Romney in the closing days of the Republican primary. Maverick uprightness cred allows him to get away with begging for endorsements from extremist religious leaders like John Hagee. "Man of conviction" cred allows him to get away with transparent flip-flopping so egregious it would make any other politician a laughingstock. Anti-torture cred allows him to get away with supporting torture as long as only the CIA does it.

Remind me again: where does all this cred come from? And what window do Democrats go to to get the same treatment the press gives McCain?

That's a great summing up. As to how we wound up in this mess, let's turn to Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler on 3/24:

WE DON’T TRY HARDER: In this morning’s New York Times, John Harwood authors a fairly standard piece about John McCain’s current advantages. But at one point, Harwood offers an unintentional, stinging indictment of liberal and Dem Party leadership:

HARWOOD (3/24/08): Democratic operatives have prepared a sustained attack against what they call myths underlying Mr. McCain's reputation for straight talk. ''It's going to take a while to tear that down,'' said Jim Jordan, a consultant who will lead a Democratic Party advertising campaign to aid its nominee. Lamenting the Clinton-Obama fight, Mr. Jordan added, “That's why it would be nice to get this over with as soon as possible.”

That highlighted statement is revealing—and sad. Speaking of McCain’s undeserved “reputation for straight talk,” Jordan makes this pitiful statement: ''It's going to take a while to tear that down.''

If only people of Jim Jordan’s ilk had thought of that ten years ago!

As everyone on earth must know by now, McCain has been relentlessly pimped—as an authentic straight-shooting straight-talker—for at least the past dozen years. This pimping hasn’t been done by the RNC; it’s been done by the mainstream press corps. No one has ever really disputed the claim that the mainstream press corps pimps McCain hard. Indeed: All the way back in May 1998, Brother Chas Pierce wrote a tongue-in-piece profile for Esquire, entitled “John McCain Walks on Water.” Once again, this was May 1998—a year before the start of McCain’s first White House run. But even then, Brother Pierce was rolling his eyes at the way the big pundit corps pandered:

PIERCE (5/98): By any standard, McCain has become a star in that increasingly elastic firmament in which politics is emulsified with modern celebrity. His national profile never has been higher. His influence—particularly among the nation's chattering classes—at times seems comically powerful. He sends Don Imus into stammering flummery, and he turns Tim Russert into a puddle on the floor. During the 1996 campaign, when McCain was Bob Dole's most effective surrogate, Michael Lewis of The New Republic wrote about McCain more rapturously than he'd once written about his second wife's derriere.

“The nation's opinion makers have come to regard him as more than simply a reliable source of informed commentary,” Pierce wrote. “Instead, they look to him as a source of moral witness.” Again, Pierce wrote this in the spring of 1998, long before the full-blown fawning which defined press coverage of McCain’s first White House run. The press corps has always fawned to McCain. And everyone always has known this.

Everyone has always known this—except, of course, for your Dem Party leadership. Only now, in the spring of 2008, do these slumbering city mice announce that “it's going to take a while” to tear down McCain’s reputation. Voters have heard that McCain is a saint for ten years. Today, Jordan gears for the fight!

But this has been the shape of Dem Party leadership over the course of the past two decades. This also reflects the type of “leadership” which has come from liberal and progressive “intellectual elites.” To all appearances, these elites just don’t really care—they don’t really care who wins our elections. They’ve mal-adapted that old Avis slogan. We’re number two—and we don’t try harder.

The RNC (and the rest of the conservative world) would never have tolerated the sanctification of some Big Major Democrat of McCain’s type. But liberals and Dems have stared into space as McCain has been endlessly vested with sainthood. By any normal interpretive standard, our liberal/Dem elites just don’t seem to care. Judged in any normal way, they don’t care who wins our elections.

We’ll be exploring these themes all week. We’ve been number two—and we haven’t tried harder! Why is that? we’ll ask all week. Why is Jordan gearing up for a fight about McCain’s public profile long after the fight has been lost?

Somerby's the best source I've found for documenting the fraud of the original "Straight Talk Express" over which so many journalists still gush. Basically, back in 2000, when McCain was trumpeting that everything would be "on the record," he'd occasionally ask for something to be taken off the record, or the press, liking McCain, would cover for him even when his remarks was newsworthy. I'm hoping Somerby will recap some of his greatest hits (if not, I'll dig up my favorite). Regardless, this is the biggest challenge we face in this election season, and it'll be the same whether it's Clinton or Obama as the nominee. The press loves McCain, and they will cover for him to ridiculous lengths. The SNL sketches depicting the press fawning over Obama were comedic exaggeration, but that fawning's highly relative. Obama fandom among the press is nothing compared to their worship of McCain. Howard Kurtz, who gushes over McCain quite a bit, has repeatedly insisted that the press was shamed by the SNL sketches and 'toughened up' on Obama as a result (over shallow versus substantial issues, of course, as noted by John Amato, Glenn Greenwald and Digby). We need to create the same shame over McCain. Kurtz belatedly recognized the seriousness of McCain's "gaffes," although he could have found out the same if he merely read major liberal blogs or had simply bothered to take seriously the Americablog post he initially dismissed in disgraceful fashion (ignoring Obama's response, among many other things). Kurtz is the norm in this respect.

Sadly, when it comes to our major pundits, and far too many journalists, there's plenty they should feel ashamed of, but let's start with this. As I've written before, the press always tries to play kingmaker, they don't mind lying to do so, and their judgment is consistently disastrous. Let's consider that they picked Bush not once, but twice, and despite the devastation Bush has left on a staggering number of fronts, some of them are still reflexively disparaging even moderate liberalism, denouncing the most tepid of oversight, and bucking for a third Bush term in McCain. We can't really afford our three trillion dollar war or nine trillion dollar national debt either, but we definitely can't afford any more of the radical, reckless Bush/Cheney regime. Let's accurately report matters, challenge McCain on everything, and press the media on why they aren't doing the same.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

That Damned Liberal Racism

With the recent arrival of MLK Day, it's time once again for doctrinaire conservatives to pretend that liberals are racists and if Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were alive today, he'd be a conservative. Think I'm kidding? Check out this year's assessment of such rhetoric by Mister Leonard Pierce of Sadly, No! Meanwhile, Rick Perlstein provides some welcome historical perspective on past opposition and this attempted appropriation. (Roy has a slightly different take.)

Of course, if conservative pundits had any integrity, they'd also have called out Jonah Goldberg for his noxious piece of disingenuous, revisionist crap, Liberal Fascism, weeks ago, and Goldberg himself would have actually responded to the "serious" criticism he claims he welcomes. Not content to level the ludicrous accusation that progressives are the real descendents of fascists, Goldberg recently accused them of being the real racists, as well. It's all the more striking given that Goldberg works for the National Review, which had a long history of supporting segregation (and check out the vintage Goldberg Roy linked in the post linked above).

Still, "let's pretend" is the essence of the wingnut welfare system of conservative think tank "scholars." Thus, for them, liberals can be denounced with a straight face as both fascists and racists. It's their accepted gospel that the poor are poor due to a lack of character, or the poor actually have it very good, and anyway, the worst evil possible is to help them, as that Jesus guy once said. But then, we're talking about a system that offered to pay a scientist $10,000 to deny global warming. Merit, integrity and empirical truth don't exactly play an active role.

The big problem with bad-faith, conservative "let's pretend" games is that the mainstream media happily plays along, granting such conservatives undeserved legitimacy. And the media doesn't just play along with conservatives — it often spread the same crap. Liberals are of course not completely free from all prejudices, and certainly not all conservatives are racists, but it ranges from silly to appalling to accuse the Democratic Party of being the party of racism. It's not as if the massive shift in party alignment among southern white males in the 60s due to the Civil Rights Movement is some big secret. That movement belongs largely to the Democrats, and MLK, LBJ, and the Kennedys certainly do, while the Republicans own the Southern Strategy of Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes.

To be fair to the media on its recent obsession with race and gender issues, supporters of the Obama and Clinton campaigns, or the campaigns themselves, raised said issues in the form of attacks (check out Bob Johnson and Jesse Jackson, Jr., for two examples). But the media certainly hasn't elevated the discourse since, and the campaigns have wisely agreed to bury the hatchet — albeit only on those lines. (Notice, too, how Edwards is pushed out of the race in most press narratives, and also in most of Hillary Clinton's rhetoric, and to a lesser degree Obama's).

The truth is, America could use much more good discussion on race, gender and, even more importantly, class and power. The problem is, our national public discourse is still managed by shallow pundits, and on even the most important of subjects, they insist on having their shallow way. The current hackdom commemorating MLK Day is a feature, not a bug. Looking over the past couple of weeks, two patterns emerge. One, conservatives have ramped up their habitual attacks on Democrats using race and gender. Two, the mainstream media has done the same, and ignored that pattern number one is happening.

When Russerts Attack

If you missed the hoopla over Hillary Clinton's statements about Martin Luther King and President Johnson, and how they were extremely poorly reported, out of context, read Greg Sargent's "New York Times Keeps Running Truncated Version Of Hillary's Quote About Martin Luther King" (follow-ups here and here). A similar distortion occurred when Bill Clinton referred to Barack Obama's representation of his stance on invading Iraq as a "fairy tale." Although Bill Clinton's statement can be fairly challenged as inaccurate, he was clearly talking about Obama's views on war with Iraq back in 2002, not on Obama's entire campaign, as numerous reporters and pundits chose to misrepresent it. In other words, Clinton's words were challenged, but on the wrong grounds. The media — shockingly! — choose to sell a sensationalistic, bogus, gossipy storyline, which not incidentally obscured the far more serious issue of the illegitimacy and folly of pre-emptive war.

Bill Moyers, a fine journalist and former press secretary to President Johnson, provided a valuable perspective on MLK and LBJ and the “tempest in a teapot" over Hillary Clinton's comments.

In contrast, Tim Russert, a shameless hack, conducted a hatchet job on Hillary Clinton from the get-go on Meet the Press on 1/13/08. (Just to be clear, I'd like to see all the candidates grilled, but on substance.) This show may be a new low even for Russert, a powerful media figure the Republicans know can be counted on to help them "control [the] message." Most blatant of all was Russert saying "This is exactly what President Clinton said in Dartmouth," and then running a deliberately truncated clip obscuring context. (Did he think no viewers would notice?) Russert continued to attack Hillary Clinton, citing the reactions of "neutral" black political figures to Bill Clinton's statement. Russert ignored that they were all responding to a misrepresentation of Bill Clinton's statement, whether their own, or more likely, the mispresentation spread by Russert and many of his colleagues in the mainstream media. Hillary Clinton had already set the record straight quite well, but Russert had his "gotcha" assault all lined up, and there was no way in hell he was going to abandon his manufactured scandal. ( I was happy to see Media Matters pick up the same thing.)

Russert quoting Bill Clinton out of context was pretty blatant, but Russert was even more shameless during the same stretch. By proxy (quoting someone else is how this game is played), he accused Hillary Clinton of "taking cheap shots at, of all people, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr." and cited a particularly loathsome op-ed, saying:

A writer in the Washington Post today, a black woman said it's as if you are minimizing "I Have a Dream." That you're saying it's a nice sentiment, but it took a white president to get blacks to the mountaintop.

If you think any of this is any of this behavior is unusual from Russert, and that he really didn't know better, I have an unnecessary war with Iran to sell you. Russert's record is pretty damning (this recent Daily Howler post just touches on some of it; Bob Somerby promises more is to follow, but there's plenty of good past critiques from DH and elsewhere). But you don't even need to do that. Let's see what the first few questions were from Tim Russert and Brian Williams at the Democratic Debate in Nevada on 1/15/08 (you can read the transcript here or watch most of the debate thanks to this YouTube user).

Here's question #1 of the debate:

Williams: As we sit here, this, as many of you may know, is the Reverend Martin Luther King's birthday. Race was one of the issues we expected to discuss here tonight. Our sponsors expected it of us. No one, however, expected it to be quite so prominent in this race as it has been over the last 10 days.

We needn't go back over all that has happened, except to say that this discussion, before it was over, involved Dr. King, President Johnson, even Sidney Poitier, several members of Congress, and a prominent African-American businessman supporting Senator Clinton, who made what seemed to be a reference to a party of Senator Obama's teenage past that the Senator himself has written about in his autobiography.

The question to begin with here tonight, Senator Clinton, is: How did we get here?

To be fair, as Williams noted, some of the debate time was designed to address issues of race. However, I suspect "shallow campaign gossip masquerading as a discussion on race" wasn't what the co-sponsors had in mind. Here's question #2:

Tim Russert: In terms of accountability, Senator Obama, Senator Clinton on Sunday told me that the Obama campaign had been pushing this storyline. And, true enough, your press secretary in South Carolina -- four pages of alleged comments made by the Clinton people about the issue of race.

In hindsight, do you regret pushing this story?

Here's Russert's two follow-ups to Obama:

Russert: Do you believe this is a deliberate attempt to marginalize you as the black candidate?

[...]

Russert: In New Hampshire, your polling was much higher than the actual vote result. Do you believe, in the privacy of the voting booth, people used race as an issue?

Question #3 (re-capping part of question #1) and its follow-up:

Russert: Senator Clinton, in terms of accountability, you told me on Sunday morning, "Any time anyone has said anything that I thought was out of bounds, they're gone. I've gotten rid of them."

Shortly thereafter, that same afternoon, Robert Johnson, at your event, said, quote, "When Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood, that I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book," widely viewed as a reference to Senator Obama's book,"Dreams From My Father" from 1995, where he talked about his drug use as a teenager.

Will you now not allow Robert Johnson to participate in any of your campaign events because of that conduct?

Russert: Were his comments out of bounds?

Question #4 was finally addressed to mystery candidate John Edwards. How nice to get the over-inflated Clinton-Obama feud settled, and superficial questions about important issues behind us. But wait!

Natalie Morales: Thank you, Brian.

And this is a question for Senator Edwards. It comes to us from Margaret Wells from San Diego, California.

Senator, she's asking, "The policy differences among the remaining candidates is so slight that we appear to be choosing on the basis of personality and life story. That being said, why should I, as a progressive woman, not resent being forced to choose between the first viable female candidate and the first viable African American candidate?"

Morales: Senator Edwards, as a follow-up to Margaret Wells' question, what is a white male to do running against these historic candidacies?

Well, surely we'll be done with shallow issues by question #5:

Williams: Question for Senator Obama. You won the women's vote in Iowa, but Senator Clinton won the women's vote in New Hampshire, and there probably isn't an American alive today who hasn't heard the post-game analysis of New Hampshire, all the reasons the analysts give for Senator Clinton's victory. Senator Clinton had a moment where she became briefly emotional at a campaign appearance.

But another given was at the last televised debate, when you, in a comment directed to Senator Clinton, looked down and said, "You're likable enough, Hillary."

That caused Frank Rich to write, on the op-ed page of the New York Times, that it was "your most inhuman moment, to date." And it clearly was a factor and added up.

Senator Obama, do you regret the comment, and comments like that, today?

Maybe they were just having a bad start to the night! (I mean, it's not like they write these questions down beforehand or anything.) Let's try question #6:

Williams: And one more question about that last televised debate, Senator Edwards. Afterwards, Senator Clinton said it was as if you and Senator Obama had formed a buddy system against her. Senator Clinton put out an Internet ad that was entitled "Piling On."

Looking back on it, the campaign for New Hampshire in total, do you admit that it might have looked that way?

Need I tell you that the vast majority of questions were as lousy and superficial as these? Race returned, but mostly in shallow ways:

Russert: Senator Clinton, one of your pollsters was quoted in The New Yorker magazine as saying this: "The Hispanic voter has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates."

Does that represent the view of your campaign?

[...]

Russert: Let me ask Senator Obama. Do you believe there's a history of a decision, where Latino voters will not vote for a black candidate?

Oooh, stir up a fight if you can! There was one more question on race, notably from one of the co-sponsors versus the NBC savants:

Morales: This one is to Senator Obama. This comes to us from one of our co-sponsors of tonight's debate, the 100 Black Men of America.

They ask, "To what do you attribute the disproportionately high dropout of black males at every level in our educational process, and what would you do to stem the tide of black men exiting the educational system?"

This last one was easily the most serious, if not the only serious question on race in the entire debate. Very few questions dealt with policy, and nearly all of those started as a "gotcha" about some vote. I didn't even include Russert's lame, attempted gotcha questions about withdrawing troops and ROTC programs (fodder for another post, perhaps). The candidates actually offered some thoughtful responses at times, but that was largely despite the questions, not because of them. (NBC does get credit, though, for refuting the "Obama is a Muslim" rumor and tailoring a question to let Obama address it.)

While a campaign spat provided the excuse, Russert and Williams were off to the races with this one, pressing Democrats on their racism and sexism. Perhaps I just missed it, but I don't remember them or any debate moderators pressing the Republican candidates on the implicit and sometimes explicit racism and bigotry of many of the GOP campaigns when it comes to immigration or the Middle East. Thompson, Giuliani and McCain have all claimed that America has the best health care in the world, and that universal health care would lower the quality of American health care, but I don't remember the media fact-checking them, pointing out that those claims are highly questionable if not outright false (more in a later post). I don't remember McCain, Romney and the rest being challenged on their ludicrous claim that cutting taxes always raises revenues. That, too, is highly deceptive at best, but essentially false, yet apparently voters don't need to know that, either. The list could go on, but the press as a whole consistently apply a different, harsher standard to Democrats. But then, as the Democratic candidates themselves show, theirs is the party of racism, sexism and classism, so it's only fair.

(As an aside, when the MSNBC announcer said the debate was co-sponsored by "one hundred black men," I had to laugh. The "announcer voice" delivery made it funny, and it sounded like it was actually one hundred black men versus the organization, "100 Black Men of America." Mainly, though, I laughed because I imagined "one hundred black men" being intoned at a GOP debate, and the number of conservatives who would crap their pants.)

A Roundup of Claptrap on Race (and Gender)

Race predominates over gender in this collection, but lest one think any of Russert's shtick is isolated, glance over the following.

"Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam" (1/7/08): Yes, you thought this silly rumor was long ago slain, but you reckoned without the awesome, err, reasoning of Daniel Pipes, whose discovery was hailed by many right-wing bloggers. Let me turn it over to Sadly, No!, who in turn linked Dum Pendebat Filius' debunk, and let's throw in Media Matters' "Daniel Pipes relied on disputed LA Times article to revive Obama-Muslim falsehood" for good measure. Never let the truth get in the way of a good smear, I always say!

Here's the key element to watch: Pipes claims Obama was raised Muslim (a lie), even though he's now Christian, but further argues that because Obama was raised Muslim, the Muslim world will view him as an apostate and try to assassinate him should he become president. (Presumably, he'd be even less popular with the Middle East than George Bush, I guess.) It's really a pretty compact job of hackery, smears and projection, wrapping up all sorts of bigotry and calumny in one little disingenuous article. I guess that's what a doctorate can do. Several right-wingers have spread Pipes' crap since, and it just keeps going and growing.

"Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds warn of "social unraveling" if Obama loses" (1/5/08): Glenn Greenwald takes on the racially-tinged concern trolling of two right-wing stalwarts.

"They Blinded Me With Violence" (1/7/08): Sadly, No! adds some snark and examines the fears of Canadian blogger Adam Yoshida over a "negro and Islamic homo uprising." (I bet it'd make a great movie.)

"Great (American) Expectations: Barack Obama shows why foreigners consider us naive" (1/8/08): Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal basically argues that Obama's success in Iowa proves that we don't need to celebrate that success. I was tempted to dissect the multi-layered hackdom of this one paragraph by paragraph, but Roy and Digby already skewered it in wittier and pithier fashion.

"The Clintons' One-Two Punch" (1/10/08): Robert Novak attacks the Clintons, as well as those dopey women who were "naïve" enough to be taken in by Hillary Clinton pretending to cry (she didn't cry). He also spreads the lie that Bill Clinton denounced Obama's entire campaign as a "fairy tale." (I do wonder if anyone takes Novak seriously.)

"Karl Rove sends out the Dogs of Racism with his WSJ op-ed on Obama": John Amato of Crooks and Liars examines Karl Rove's 1/10/08 WSJ op-ed attacking Obama.

"Of Hope and Politics" (1/12/08): In The New York Times, Bob Herbert runs with the misrepresentation of Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment, and accuses Hillary Clinton of "taking cheap shots at, of all people, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr." (This is the first of the two op-eds Russert quoted.)

"Will They Play the Race Card?" (1/13/08) In a Washington Post op-ed, Marjorie Valbrun argues that because it's possible, "the mean Clinton machine" will attack Obama along racial lines. She also talks about how "scary" Bill Clinton was in a speech and how Hillary insulted MLK. (This is the second piece Russert quoted.)

The Daily Howler of 1/14/08 critiques both the Herbert and Valbrun columns nicely. Somerby also links a good Josh Marshall piece on Bob Johnson's smear against Obama and Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment.

"Could Race Destroy the Democrats?" asks Michael Duffy of Time magazine on 1/14/08. (Bet you can't wait to find out his answer! Hint: it has nothing to do with racist conservatives!)

"Sexism, Racism: Which Is More Taboo?" asks David Crary of the AP on 1/14/08. (Via Melissa McEwan.)

"Columnist Prelutsky: Obama "sort of reminds me of David Duke"": Media Matters looks at a 1/14/08 column appearing at Townhall.com and WorldNetDaily.

"Obama's Farrakhan Test" (1/15/08): Taking bigotry in another direction, Richard Cohen discovers that the newsmagazine of Obama's church honored Louis Farrakhan, notes that Obama doesn't seem to be anti-Semitic at all, and also notes that Obama's campaign says he disagrees with his minister about Farrakhan. Cohen then proceeds to insist, at length, that Obama needs to denounce Farrakhan more vehemently. Many in the liberal blogosphere took Cohen to task on this, and Jewish leaders have taken a more general stance against such nonsense. In an online chat, Eugene Robinson also offered a good response. (Cohen's attacked Obama over trivial nonsense before.)

"A Hand the Clintons Aren't Showing" (1/15/08): Eugene Robinson takes on the race issue as well. Notably, he correctly notes the context of Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" remark, but questions an aspect of his Sister Souljah remark back in 1992. (I generally find Robinson very insightful on race, and think this is a more substantial piece than the others, but judge for yourself.)

"A Race About Race" (1/15/08): Howard Kurtz samples comments chiding the Democrats, including pieces accusing the Democrats of exploiting race. He quotes Valbrun's loathsome piece, as well as Joe Klein citing Shelby Steele. He even lowers below his usual Malkin standard to include Riehl World View and Bull Dog Pundit. But not to fear, Malkin herself weighs in here, too, attacking Democratic "race-hustlers"! Ouch. That's some fine 'journalmalism.'

The Daily Howler dissects a NYT article from 1/15/08 about the spectre of assassination over Obama.

The Daily Howler dissects a NYT column from 1/16/08 about the spectre of assassination over Obama. (I'm sensing a trend here.)

"Shelby Steele on Michelle Obama's 60 Minutes comments: She was "facilitating her race's manipulation of the American mainstream"" (1/16/08): Media Matters examines a distortion by Steele in his latest book. (Funny, it's a distortion similar to those used in those two NYT pieces!)

"Investor's Business Daily: "Would Obama put African tribal or family interests ahead of U.S. interests?"" (1/16/08): Media Matters dissects a particularly noxious op-ed, which incidentally cites the earlier Pipes piece.

"Clinton's 'Vetting' Attack" (1/17/08): Robert Novak attacks both Hillary Clinton and Obama, mainly on race.

"Misstep in a Liberal Minefield" (1/17/08): George Will notes that Hillary Clinton's MLK comments were misconstrued, but he's gonna pile on anyway, because it serves liberals right for rubbing his face in race and gender issues for all those years.

Mickey Kaus is a polydolt, that is, an ignorant, poorly-reasoning ass on a wide variety of subjects, so pointing out that he's said something asinine and/or counterintuitive on race is a bit like complaining, oh, that Pauly Shore or Dane Cook told an unfunny joke. Still, dnA at Too Sense takes on some recent idiocy by Kaus. Then there's this 2007 Too Sense post, with an update relating Kaus saying, "I don't quite understand why it's offensive to call Sen. Obama a "halfrican."" Umm, we know you don't, Mickey. Or there's this 2007 Kaus post where he complains, "I'd certainly be more comfortable with a presidential nominee whose main spiritual man… in general wasn't so obsessed with race…" (Kaus' emphasis, and that is but item 4 of 4). Funny, I'd be more "comfortable" if Kaus wouldn't blather on about race.

"Conservatives Can't Stop Fantasizing About Obama Assasination" (1/17/08): dnA at Too Sense recaps some of the trends.

"What's Gotten Into Bill?" (1/18/08): Eugene Robinson takes a more sustained shot at Bill Clinton. (I like Robinson most of the time, but have to agree with Bob Somerby's critique on this one).

"Black Dreams, White Liberals" (1/18/08): Charles Krauthammer builds on his reflexive sneers against Democrats to accuse white liberals such as the Clintons of keeping the black man down (and liberals have it coming too, for calling him a racist in the past!).

" Are Democrats over 45 Racists?" (1/20/08): Digby examines the silliness of a CBS story.

"Clinton, Obama crossfire continues" (1/22/08): Beth Fouhy of the AP continues the MSM narrative! Not only does this keep everything nice and superficial, this piece mostly shuts John Edwards out of the race. (Of course, all that "rebuttal" time at the debates does a nice job of that, too.)

"Breaking: Obama Says He's Not A Muslim! " (1/24/08): Greg Sargent takes a look at conservative site NewsMax.com's creative re-titling of an AP story. (Funny, isn't this how we started?)

I'm sure there's much more out there. But hey, now might also be a good time to revisit Fox News' progressive attitudes on race!

Keeping our Eyes on the Hardball

It's important for liberals to recognize the game being played. As Digby wrote in relationship to a certain infamous MSNBC program and its host:

The takeaway "insight" from this Hardball was that the Democratic race is now a battle between the racist old bitches and the sexist African Americans. Fabulous. (White men like Chris, you'll notice, are the only ones voting purely on the merits in this little scenario.)

As Digby's since noted, "Don't listen, campaigns. They only want to hurt the ball club." She also links Jane Hamsher's "Is The Press Out to Destroy the Democrats?" Like Jane, I have to say, um, yup. The "liberal media" is largely a myth, but in addition to any partisanship or double standard, there's the commercial motivation and personal vapidity. Attacking the Democrats makes good copy and good theater for them.

I'll say it again: America could use much more good discussion on race, gender and, even more importantly, class and power. The problem is, our national public discourse is still managed by shallow pundits. When it comes to presidential races, they always try to play kingmaker, and their judgment is unfailingly disastrous (Bush not once, but twice?!?). It's a mistake to put too much trust in any politician, and think that he or she will do the right thing without getting kicked in the ass consistently by the citizens he or she supposedly represents. Politicians and citizens often have different true interests. It's likewise dangerous to trust that that press, supposedly the citizen's advocate, have the general public's best interests in mind. As Mitt Romney, who saw his father march with Martin Luther King, might say: don't believe the hype.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)