I don't know where this reverence for the "working press" --whatever the hell that menas comes from. You've been asleep for eight years or more if you think these talking heads are performing the duties of an actual press.

Posted at October 7, 2008 8:21 PM in response to Will Brokaw Let McCain Change Subject To Ayers?

Brokaw is a mediocrity with a tiny, tiny mind. Of course he doesn't think Keating is relevant, and of course he'll bring up the Ayers smear. My guess is he's even capable of taking Obama to task if Keating comes up--even as he puts Ayers in play.

Posted at October 7, 2008 7:03 PM in response to Will Brokaw Let McCain Change Subject To Ayers?

Here's Obama's hardest hitting ad yet, just released:

"What happened to John McCain?" a female announcer asks. "He's running 'the sleaziest ads ever.' ... 'Dishonest smears' ... a 'disgraceful, dishonorable campaign.'"

It's a beauty. Now what do you think the coverage is going to do--continue to discuss McCain's lies, an issue that is just getting good traction, or put Obama's claim up against this incredibly misguided ad?

Posted at September 15, 2008 12:04 PM in response to New Ad Stars Fellow McCain POW Suggesting He's Unfit To Be President

Incredibly stupid. Just what McCain wants: a huge distraction to fire up the base with empty indignation. Meanwhile the economy tanks...

Greenwald must be an idiot.

Posted at September 15, 2008 11:55 AM in response to New Ad Stars Fellow McCain POW Suggesting He's Unfit To Be President

Well, I wish I thought it was a trainwreck, but I think she's pulling it off in these excerpts--even the Russia comment is couched vaguely enough: it simply won't play as a decisive liability. Only a comment that's so far out of bounds not even wingnuts will applaud it will hurt her. There's no reason she can't continue to give these coached answers to predictable questions. And the questions ARE predictable, but not so bad they'll produce an outcry. She's lying about her "task from God"
remarks, and contradicting herself, but all that counts is that she play the game of knowing what to say when asked about it: won't matter that she did.

Coupled with the ridiculously low expectations (that anything beyond drooling on herself is commendable), this will be taken as a coup for her.

Again, simply surviving an interview without a universally condemned gaffe establishes nothing--but that's the standard in play.

Convince me I'm wrong.

Posted at September 11, 2008 5:59 PM in response to Charlie Gibson On Palin's Decision To Run: "Didn't That Take Some Hubris?"

Entirely parse-able as a non-denial denial. What a joke.

Posted at August 22, 2008 4:05 PM in response to CIA: Suskind Charges are "False" and "Offensive"

I'm not sure I agree that this was a good article at all.

While the substance of it-- McCain's war talk, the misdirection from Al Qaeda--speaks to his idiocy--I the article is framed remarkably uncritically. It repeats the "straight talk" bullshit, it subjectively chooses to characterize McCain in terms of being a war "hero" (which I still fail to see)rather than a corrupt Keating Five leftover (granted it could be ironic--but the info just isn't there to force that reading); this phrase: "the leading advocate of taking the American retaliation against Al Qaeda far beyond Afghanistan" leaves it implicit that there was actually AQ involvement in Iraq/Iran.

When it finally hits a critical graf, it's in terms of vague "critics" rather than a flat recognition that everything he said and advocated was at odds with reality. This is a McCain whitewash piece--it just depends on you not to know the facts, and invites readers to ignore them in favor of partisan perceptions.

The info may be damning, but it's still the bland Times left-right horse race style. It's shit.
-j

Posted at August 18, 2008 1:40 PM in response to McCain Just After 9/11: "Next Up, Baghdad!"

An interesting post and a fascinating trend. I'd always thought of political balkanization as an effect of niche media (the internet and so on) and less a geographic reality.

But I'm a little wary (just to muse on this) of the hint that the problem is breeding of "extremism" on both sides: that the real problem is the dynamic of not getting along in and of itself.

The idea that there's an equivalency between all ingroup/outgroup thinking seems to ignore the real issue of whose concrete policies benefit from extremism, and the fact that liberal extremism just isn't (by definition, it strives for consensus and inclusiveness) of the same sort as GOP fundamentalism. I think your example speaks to my point: ""Odessa (and 24 other Texas cities) established a Bible course in its high school. Portland, Oregon, meanwhile, invests in public transportation." At bottom, don't we hear this idea from the allegedly centrist media all the time: its those extremists on the left who are just as bad as those on the right. Sure.

-joe

Posted at July 21, 2008 5:24 PM in response to A Simple Calculation

What a hateful performance by Hillary's people. If this had been widely broadcast we'd really see the damage from her scorched earth campaign. As it is, let's hope this is the last gasp.

Posted at May 31, 2008 7:29 PM in response to DNC Rules Committee Approves Half-Vote Compromise For Florida

An entirely hypocritical and disingenuous case on behalf of Clinton.

Posted at May 31, 2008 2:41 PM in response to Clinton-Backer James Blanchard: Honor The Michigan Primary In Full