Barack Hussain Obama
No doubt Chris Matthews thinks he's giving voice to his robust internationalism, his ecumenical spirit, and his understanding of how intently the wider world turns its lonely eyes to Iowa, when he touts tonight's putative Democratic winner, a "son of Kenya" with "Third World" cred, as "Barack Hussain Obama." I can't know what's in his heart, let alone his mind, but could it be that the rise of this man plain weirds him out?
Do we hear him, or anyone speak, of Michael Dale Huckabee, John Sidney McCain, or Willard Mitt Romney?
Advertisement
I won't even begin to divine what weirds out Chris Matthews. He is one strange cat. Most of the time I think he's sniffing glue.
January 3, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matthews was talking about Obama's middle name and background in the context of tomorrow's headlines in the third world, upon Obama's victory. Since our current President has not done much to win "the hearts and minds" of others around the world - in fact, just the opposite - this doesn't seem to be such a particularly awful thing.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
January 3, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point, and besides that, I also think it is traditional when formally announcing a winner to use their full name for a flourish, which is how I took what Matthews did. Now that I think on it more, Matthews may have intended a bit of what you're pointing out as well, because he's always big on the country of immigrants thing and often mentions his old Peace Corps kumbaya days in Africa. I think Prof. Gitlin is overreacting in this case. But to the professor's credit, that's because he is on oversensitive alert for possible smears, which on the whole is not a bad thing. Still, in the end, if Obama stays the frontrunner, he's going to have to deal with any and all silly racist or other unseemly reaction to his middle name, so might as well get on with it and over with it now.
To give some perspective to the whole matter, step back and realize: "Barack Obama" is not exactly a traditionally WASP name, and he won in Iowa. So the repetition of his middle name is going to kill his chances? He's already basically over the name hump with anyone whose mind could be changed on the matter.
January 3, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama, in his victory speech, himself just mentioned that he was the son of "a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas," so Obama himself is emphasizing his non-WASPish heritage. As well he should: it's a powerful symbol to the rest of the world about what our country stands for, at it's best.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
January 3, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he's more of a sexist than a racist. He makes more dumb remarks about women than any pundit on TV.
January 3, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ohhh, yes. I actually think he's genuinely decent on race, and that the three-name thing was indeed meant as a positive in the way others have noted. (Though it did happen to be just what Bob Kerrey did recently, which Matthews as much as anyone excoriated him for.)
But women? Oy, what a nutbar. Freud would have a field day...
January 4, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Comes from attending single sex parochial high schools. Too much God and too much masturbation.
January 4, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Matthews is much more impressed by Chris Matthews than I am.
January 3, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, as happy as I am that Obama seems to be the certain winner at this point, I'm irritated that the Networks insist on "calling it" early. You'd think they'd have learned a lesson on principle that they just shouldn't do that.
It's both impatient and cowardly at the same time. Making a prediction of outcomes after 3/4 of the votes are in, a half hour earlier than other networks, is like the multi-billion dollar corporate version of the twits who feel compelled to post "first" on Internet fora.
But, old habits and all. Our MSM is nothing if not addicted to sensationalism and sloppiness.
January 3, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 3, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good. Say it all the time. And claim he's a Muslim too. By all means, they should knock themselves out.
It's not like these issues are difficult to set straight, and the more cynical the Republicans get, the more they'll crater. And they won't be able to resist, any more than pandering to segregationists and macacca moments. They'll need to shore up the base even if they're losing the other 2/3 - 3/4 of Americans, becasue they're desperate and have utterly painted themselves into a corner. That's the best part.
Then there will be the slimy and utterly transparent faint praise from people like Brooks, which is so cynical and partisan and just exposes those hacks for what they are.
This is going to be a great year.
January 3, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, not saying Matthews is a Republican, just that he has shock-jock tendencies which are reminiscent of Republican pundits who certainly will race bait.
On that note, allow me to paraphrase some prominent Republican geniuses of recent fame and (bad) fortune:
"Bring it on! Do it like Strom Thurmond, and take it to the Macaccas! I never said it would be a cake walk, but it'll be a cake walk. For 150K in my PAC we'll turnout the 'wingnuts' and Grandma Millie will never know as we vacation in the Marianas, becasue we're Machiavellian geniuses like that."
January 4, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
For perspective's sake, from Media Matters:
January 3, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think [Bush] is defining the office of the presidency, at least for this time, as basically that of commander in chief? Chris Mattews
Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that Matthews was correct in this implied assessment?
January 3, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, Chris Matthews is a weirdo, no doubt about it.
But, come on.
William Jefferson Clinton.
Is Obama's middle name on some sort of banned words list that I don't know about?
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 3, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry johnson shares his own pique re Matthews.
From his "noquarter" website in a post titled :
Iowa, A Pimple On a Gnat's Ass.......
"....But you would not know that if you happened to listen to the ravings of Chris Matthews. Jesus Christ!! The guy is doing everything but foaming at the mouth and having a full blown gran mal seizure. Bet you didn’t know that what happened tonight in Iowa is the equivalent of the shots fired at Lexington and Concord to torch off America’s War of Independence? Yep. It is so because Matthews said so. Of course, people died back in April of 1775. As far as I know Obama, Edwards, and Hillary are all still alive–literally and politically.
If the mood strikes you, send a little note to NBC noting that to call Chris Matthews a pig’s ass would be an insult to every pig in Iowa with an ugly, hairy, mud-stained ass."
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/
January 3, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, Larry can really be so vile.
January 3, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry johnson is a loyal guy and he and his buddy Joe Wilson like it mean and dirty.
Sic, Larry........SIT!
Some grumpy bloggers in Progressive-ville tonight.
January 3, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And accurate.
January 4, 2008 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry is the kind of ex-military guy easily met in local bars. Jovial, bombastic, and even obnoxious at times. Republican/Libertarian. A belief in established vertical power structures, while simultaneously cynical about it all, and loyal most of all to his own.
He obviously supports Hillary fully and attacks all serous rivals, while remembering to mention he also supports some 3rd tier candidates, to emphasize his "mind isn't made up" which is just classic. Almost cute.
He won't admit it because he doesn't want to be branded a toady. But in fact he supports her becasue she's the establishment, a known quantity. At the same time, he has that Republican/Libertarian cynicism, in that he thinks it's all so screwed up and hopeless even a known power player is better than an outsider.
Very typical world view of ex-military Republican/Libertarian types with an ingrained belief in authority and existing power structures, and at the same time a cynicism and lack of imagination.
Basically, kind of apathetic and crude.
January 4, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
That just makes me wonder if Larry's agent has been turned down on their past offers for him to appear on "Hardball."
January 4, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that the election is over and we have a new president, does anyone know who will be our new vice president? How about the cabinet positions? And, will Michelle be happy having to live in the White House? What do you think will be President Obama's legacy?
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 3, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
After what I saw last night at my caucus I don't take those questions as sarcastic. This is exactly what Dean was hoping for and what Obama delivered. I was skeptical that he could do this after my experience in '04 but obviously he is much better at reaching outside the party regulars. I think it will translate into much bigger margins in a primary context. Clinton was not even viable after the first round at my caucus. I hope Edwards doesn't go negative and continues to run as the next Attorney General.
My media highlight of the night was trying to find someone who would broadcast all of Obama's victory speech. None of the local stations carried it, none of the networks carried it in full like they did Clinton and Edwards speeches. Finally I turned to PBS for their nightly broadcast of the BBC news and within a minute at the top of the BBC World news hour they carried Obama's entire victory speech.
January 4, 2008 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
They may have aired it just once, but I did see the whole thing on MSNBC. Thing of beauty.
January 4, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
For years Matthews was toiling in relative obscurity writing a column for the San Francisco Chronicle when he apparently looked around and noticed a lot of people riding the anti-Clinton bandwagon to fame and fortune.
Not one to miss an opportunity Matthews became the host of a new show called "Hardball." With snide comments, opinion offered as fact, selective guests and subject matter, he set off as many before him; Rush Limbaugh, Ollie North, Lucianne Goldberg, Matt Drudge, etc. to attract the Clinton haters with a constant stream of rumor mongering, criticism and viciousness.
His guests were among the most vociferous of Clinton's enemies; Robert Barr, Dan Burton, William Bennett, to name a few.
One of Matthew's tactics was to throw a hypothetical out there; "Suppose Clinton sold Earth's defense plans to the Maritians for campaign cash, would that be an impeachabler offense, Bob Barr"? A minute after the question was asked the hypothetical was being discussed as fact.
Matthews once interviewed ex Congressman Bob Livingston and when Livingston tried to quote Matt Drudge, Matthews got into a snit, looked down his nose and told Livingston he doesn't allow Drudge to be quoted on Hardball, obviously implying that Matthews and Hardball were above pseudo-journalists like Drudge.
However, it was the same Matthews who had Rush Limbaugh on Hardball, and when the interview was over, said to Limbaugh, with a smile from ear to ear; "you're great, you're great, you have to come back." To this day, with Clinton long out of office, Matthews couldn't kick the cheap shot habit as he still manages to throw in a snide remark now and then.So today Matthews is obsessed with Hillary, and his commentary about her fits the mold.
One other thought about Matthews, his ego is as large as the Space Shuttle, and the unwritten law to guests on any of his shows; thou shall not disagree with Chris.
January 4, 2008 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you happen to see the ridiculous program where he and his wife interviewed each other? It was worse than anything I've seen, including Tucker -- well, no NOTHING is worse than Tucker. Now if he gets his wifey on there it will be the new low for MSNBC!
Jan
January 4, 2008 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jan,
I missed that, fortunately, but unfortunately, I saw the show when Russert was the guest and they were falling all over each other telling one another how great each was.
When they brought up the wisdom of Russert's father, Big Russ, I threw a lamp at the TV.
My wife punched me.....knocked me out.
January 4, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
hahahahaha
January 4, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody (smart) likes Matthews much, if at all. He's a demagogue and entertainer more than a news man or even a responsible and intellectually honest editorialist. Which is too bad, becasue he could do better if he quit his addiction to sensationalism.
Having said that...
It doesn't make Hillary any better either. Matthews didn't pass NAFTA, vote for Iraq, PATRIOT twice, Iran, and a lot of other bad legislation. As far as i know he's not responsible for much of what's wrong with the DLC and Third Way types, who managed to triangulate the worst of both Republicans and Democrats. He didn't apply for the job becasue his wife was a talk show host and claim it gave him the necessary experience.
And as bad as Matthews is, he's still better than Drudge. And as bad as Drudge is, he's still (marginally) better than Limbaugh, Coulter and such. It's pretty much subhuman territory any further down from there.
January 4, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sidney?!?!? Willard??!!!
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
January 4, 2008 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mathews harps on inside baseball, rather than policy. He admires the beauty of GW in a flight suit while simultaneously arguing that he had repeatedly attacked GW for conduct of the war. He loves politics, not political positions. He could admire the election of McCain despite major disagreements with McCain's policies. In essence, Mathews is a Centrist cypher with a bias towards the GOP. He loves prediction guessing games, and frequently asks guests who will win a certain political battle without detailing the facts being contested.
One day there will be a meter for measuring the accuracy of MSM pundits. Craig Crawford, on Hardball, suggested that the Clinton campaign had "internal numbers" that suggested a significant lead and were pulling back on attack ads and just coasting to victory. Obama's campaign was becoming more negative against Sen Clinton because they also had "internal numbers" suggesting that they were losing. Mr Crawford was wrong.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22472746/
One day MSM pundits will actually detail the positions taken by the candidates rather than who "looks" Presidential.
January 4, 2008 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, inside baseball, that's what the show is about. So how come those who don't like that are here supporting a site that has things like this morning's "Edwards' New Strategy Against Obama: Who Can Best Deliver Change, A Lover Or A Fighter?" I'd like to ask, which is it, people, do you like inside political coverage, or don't ya? If you don't, then what are you doing on this site? It's just that it's real strange. If you don't like Matthews personally, he turns you off, well ok. But if you think this type of coverage is bad for America, well I don't understand why you are on this site, as it's very heavy on inside political coverage.
January 4, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
you may have noticed that that particular tpm headline was from tpm ELECTION CENTRAL.
you might have also noticed that there are other places here at TPM where the actual issues and substance behind the politics is discussed and analyzed in great detail.
you apparently misunderstand the knock against tweety and hardball.
January 4, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, my ability to watch Matthews babbling on Hardball equates to about 25 seconds longer than I can watch Tucker Carlson.
Or, why watch Matthews when I can watch Sean Hannity?
January 4, 2008 6:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, Tucker Carlson finally gave up the bow tie and was on Dancing with the Stars. He's so much more substantial now.
January 4, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, article on coverage of the caucus in the Times today (Friday) is surprising in how frank it gets about Matthews. He's unafraid to make predictions, the writer notes wryly, even when he's dead wrong.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
January 4, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually think that's ok, and even good, when done well. Not that Matthews or any of the network hosts do it well. They're mostly all bloviators and entertainers, and none of them as honest about it as Stewart and Colbert. Matthews confidence to say anything with sincerity, no matter how factually challenged and absurd, gets him through the day.
Josh Marshall seems to have become slightly less predictive and opinionated as his brand has expanded, and become more of an editor, which is understandable I guess. But imho his best blogs were always when he laid out his opinions reasonably in a stream of consciousness, separating facts from opinion, with a healthy dose of devil's advocate. And still, Josh was wrong about Iraq. But he made some good blogs of his opinions. And one can certainly say TPM is a better blog overall from his efforts to expand it and find other josh marshalls to specialize on a range of issues.
January 4, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who the hell is Chris Matthews?
Better yet, in the name of Edward R. Murrow, who gives a hoot?
~OGD~
January 4, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was just thinking about Murrows. He was something of a pretentious demagogue as well. Although, a far more sincere, intelligent, and persuasive TV demagogue than we currently have. He was a demagogue who happened to be right, a lot.
But that was a different era and he was exceptional. More commonly guys in white lab coats and deep authoritative voices extolled the health benefits of smoking to aspiring middle brow intellectuals.
One of the truly beautiful and lasting things I see in blogs are their ability to even just marginally increase the efficiency of exchange and engagement in information, basically to act as educators int he public interest, on average, by virtue of format. Which sounds goofy, but if everybody is just 1% better informed and more intellectually engaged on issues, over time, it has a profound cumulative accretion of collective knowledge.
Blogs have more stream of consciousness writers, who by nature engage readers to think for themselves and consider issues on a whole 'nother level. Whether you agree or disagree, it's not passive media, it's brain fitness.
Rush Limbaugh could never be a blogger, he can hardly deal with phone-ins. Malkin isn't a blogger, she's an Internet demagogue more akin to shock jock, and she's just giving her audience an emotional fix. "Activists" like Sharpton or "intellectuals" like Dawkins or even the New College goof balls TPMC recently hosted are just the same, and embarrassments.
***
Josh recently mentioned that Obama wasn't entirely responsible for the iowa turnout, that it's also the times. Of course. And Josh is being too modest as blogs and online activism deserve some credit too. And so do Bush and Rove. They truly have become "uniters." And of course Global Climate Change, ENRON, the housing bubble, Iraq, lead toys, the Dukies winners, all deserve credit.
It's a convergence of many things. And Obama is himself a convergence of many things, the right person for the moment.
One thing in particular Obama said in his victory speech resonated especially. He said he knew people didn't really do this for him, but for themselves. From most leaders that's trite pandering. But from Obama, the way he's run his campaign, it's real.
***
One thing that neither Hillary or Edwards' seem to have realized is just psychology 101, and even Bush gets. Americans unite in times of war and great strife. They unite to fix common problems, and divide only as a luxury once times are good again. (Or they divide to totally exploit one another when possible.) But we must unite to fix the common problems we now face.
It's not just Iraq, it's the economy, medical, climate, corruption, energy dependence, etc. All the fundamental issues. These aren't partisan issues.
Hillary can never be a uniter, she's of a very divisive era and part of the establishment that got us here. And Edwards keeps making the mistake of being a prosecutor rather than a leader.
January 4, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not sniffing glue. More like huffing Right Guard. He belongs on Fox.
If I could meld Edwards' platform and Obama's oratorical genius, I'd call it perfection. Either would be a huge improvement over what we've got. It will take generations to repair the damage Shrub has done to our country.
January 4, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Todd, I think you are way off base on this one.
Chris is no slick talking head or pre-programmed ideologue pundit. He deserves credit for his forthrightness in a world of bullshit. He was wearing his emotion on his sleeve. He loves politics because it is the art of the possibly, not because of power and control. Or to put it another way, he is an idealist, and closely identifies with the Obama movement for what it represents for the country, not just the Dem party.
He is a major Obama supporter. He made a not so delicate plea for his audience to log into Obama’s web site and make contributions.
As for the Hussian name thing, better to get it out there now, and get everyone use to it… take away the weapon from the Fox fucks.
Of course the TRUTH is that there would be nothing better for US image and interests for a “Hussein” type as President. After all, notwithstanding all the efforts of the Neocon movement and this idiotic administration, this Nation is a secular and generous melting pot-- not a war mongering fascist state that demonizes through the hate filled “Islamofascism” moniker.
January 4, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've noted a jihadette against Matthews and Tim Russert on blogs of Clinton supporters. Even Col Pat Lang took up the cudgel before he finally declared himself for Hillary (in his comments section). To put it mildly, his anti-Russert/Matthews post veered wildly from his usual subject matter.
The latest Clinton diatribe against the media centers around blaming them for ignoring Obama's record and according to MSNBC's David Gregory this am, it will be their fault if a Republican is elected in 2008. Gregory thinks they have a point. Good boy, David.
Matthews is a true hardcore political junkie and believed in Bush the first time round. I think he may be the originator of the "who would you rather have a beer with?" meme? If not the source, he sure promoted it.
Matthews also seems to have gained more control over his show starting about 6 months ago and is far more confrontational than in the past. Despite his enthusiasm for Obama, he does keep asking why Clinton's campaign can't seem to convey what a truly nice person Hillary is in one-to-one encounters.
I really enjoy Hardball as love or loathe him, Tweety knows how insider Washington works, talks about the sausage-making and isn't intimidated into staying on the PCLand rez already crowded with the likes of Wolf Blitzer and lawd help us, Anderson Cooper.
January 5, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prof. Gitlin comes from a different angle, I think, the Media Matters type watchdog thing, which ultimately and ironically comes out of the "vast right wing conspiracy" game against the Clintons, the techniques of which were, rightly or wrongly, seen as having been used against Gore as well. I myself didn't buy a similar "media conspiracy" against Gore, I saw a man who I greatly admire who nonetheless should have known better how the manipulate the reality of the media circus of his times.
I don't especially feel all warm and fuzzy when I see the blog swarms against Matthews et. al. It reminds me of the rightie blog swarms that did in Dan Rather.
It's not like I am a fan of Matthews' personal political beliefs, as I just couldn't get his anger at Bill Clinton's ways. But I was still glad in the pre-blog days to have him on the tube to get halfways-intelligent impeachment-related talk when the alternative was Geraldo Rivera (Geraldo was pro-Clinton all the way, but gave much more time to the "right wing conspirators" themselves, just for ratings of course.)
January 5, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Artappraiser.
There have been reams of type taking issue with Russert and/or Matthews from all sides for quite awhile; for me, it was sort of background noise.
Perhaps I should have edited "Clinton supporters" to read "closet Clinton supporters". When I began to see attacks on Matthews/Russert on some blogs I follow that aren't overtly political, it was a heads up as they echoed the complaints coming from the Clinton camp post the NBC debate that Russert moderated. That debate was the beginning of the erosion of her image.
In particular, Col Pat Lang had a post hitting M/R that came out of the blue and was yet another big departure from his usual subject matter. This post followed earlier anti-Obama posts that were also anamolous and weirdly unconvincing both in premise and proof. To his credit, Pat Lang finally came out as a Clinton supporter in his comments section.
There was a good deal of cross-pollination between Larry johnson and Pat Lang on "concerns" about Obama. Even Steve Clemons had some more subtle echos of silly "concerns" about Obama for awhile. He appears to have dropped that shtick for now. By and large, his commenters weren't fooled and many saw advocacy behind his focus.
The Clinton campaign has been the most pro-active of ALL the political campaigns in pressuring the media to follow their narrative. Matthews has bluntly discussed pressure on his staffers by her operatives and warned them off. He doesn't shy away from the subjects of pressure on the media from the Bushies in the past or from the Clinton campaign at present.
I began watching Hardball during the 2000 campaign and as a Bush-hater from the git-go wasn't a fan. Tweety's response to the Mission Accomplished manly version of cockpit Bush nearly put me over the edge. But, Matthews was also one of the few TV talkers who questioned the attack on Iraq from early on.
January 6, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But, Matthews was also one of the few TV talkers who questioned the attack on Iraq from early on."
That's sure not the way I remember it.
January 6, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember Tweety expressing skepticism because other than the few experts who had doubts, tv was a wasteland inhabited by juiced-up zombies clamoring for war.
Given that he annoyed the hell out of me, that's one of the reasons I kept checking in.
BTW, Tweety also confidently predicted Obama's win the night before the Iowa caucus.
He's a mixed bag.
January 6, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I seem to recall Chris being all impressed when W played dress up on the aircraft carrier on "Mission Accomplished" day. It wasn't until Olbermann joined MSNBC that I recall any really clear put down's of Bush's Iraq policy. It would be interesting to check old transcripts of HARDBALL.
January 6, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with being impressed at Karl Rove's skill at propaganda? That's politics and he is interested in reporting on politics.
You're looking for a journalist that's an advocate. That's not what the show is about, it's about deconstructing political advocacy.
As I said earlier, it surprised me the two times he stepped out of the usual modus operandi of deconstructing spin and actually advocated: he disliked what the Clinton's did in reaction to the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky thing (he was with the rebel crowd that left the Clintons at that time because they felt they were using slimy tactics to fight back) and he came out as against invading Iraq.
January 6, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...he came out as against invading Iraq."
As I said, I'd like to check old transcripts on that.
January 6, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have to check old transcripts unless you really want to undertake that frustrating and timeconsuming task.
Here's a snippet from an article Matthews wrote for the SF Chronicle on 6/9/02. Go ahead and read the whole thing for the context:
"What are these new goals Bush has put forth? What ideology justifies this aggressive new role in the world, making us a global American Civil Liberties Union at war with every country that fails to give its citizens the rights enjoyed by Americans?
All this talk is merely the pretext for an unprovoked U.S. attack on Iraq.
The ideological hawks around the president can't prove any Iraqi involvement in Sept. 11. Nor can they prove Saddam Hussein supplied the anthrax for those letters last fall. So they're setting up another cause for war."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/06/09/IN84658.DTL
January 6, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Lally, it is the way I remember it. Pre-invasion, he even really went beyond his usual pretense of objectivity, I recall more than once he came right out and said several times that he didn't like what Bush was doing and was going to try to fight it. I remember being surprised by how blatant he was about it. After the invasion started, well, he is the type of boomer not to want to say anything that might be construed as anti-military, i.e., once we are in a conflict, you "support the troops."
I remember it well because not being able to find anyone else on the tube that was addressing my similar opposition like Chris Matthews was, I started looking at political blogs on the net instead of just ebay.
January 6, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You got it totally backwards, Professor.
From Media Resarch Center's Notable Quotables, January 28, 2008:
/Bartcop's citation of that link said it's by
"Tweety the Screamer, President of the Obama is God Club"
Really, I find it hard to trust your interpretations of pundits anymore, I feel I know more than you do and that there's something seriously wrong with that situation. You seem too quick to just presume everyone's out to smear Democrats in general, instead of having individual pecadilloes about who they like and who they don't. For instance, someone like Maureen Dowd, she just doesn't like politicians in general, she was not out to make Gore lose, that was not her program. Tweety dislikes the Clintons, wasn't a big fan of Gore, but he adores the Kennedy's and Jimmy Carter....They are virtually all like that, because: pundits and columnists (and most bloggers) sell their personality, that's their business. They're not reporters.
January 30, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink