Complaints rain down from the left on Alessandra "Baby Dowd" Stanley
The following is the reaction of Progressive blogger Matt Browner Hamlin, who has also blogged for the Huffington Post, campaigned for Chris Dodd and works for the SEIU:
[A]t no point in the time since June 7, 2008, has Hillary Clinton ever suggested that her concession of the Democratic nomination for the presidency was not "for real." Again, Stanley is making things up.Media Matters' Eric Boehlert warns Stanley: Speak for yourself, Alessandra:
First off, my hunch is that most people assumed Clinton conceded the election "for real" when she, y'know, conceded the election in June. Or maybe when she endorsed Obama at the convention in August, or when she campaigned for him nationwide in October. But for The Village, it wasn't until December that Clinton conceded the election "for real."
...
Note the "plenty of viewers" language. We've noted this media trend before. Almost nobody in the real world shares the media's Clinton obsession, so in order to couch it as news, pundits simply pretend they're speaking for the masses, so Stanley goes with the "plenty of viewers."Again it's just a hunch, but I think if you could find 100 people anywhere in the country who actually saw Clinton's SoS acceptance as her de facto election concession, then 95 of them probably work for elite media news orgs.
Meanwhile, Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler describes Stanley thusly:
Stanley is a pal of Dowd's; she often displays the same desire to force her own foolish dramas onto your most important news topics. And let's state the obvious: This group will never stop working this way, until widespread ridicule makes them stop. They live inside a sumptuous palace--and their flighty minds are full of dime novels. They're too dumb to see the world other ways. They'll insist on novelizing your news until they're finally stopped.
Atrios of the Eschaton blog honored the journalist with his "Wanker of the day" award.
Even Bloggers for Change, whose mission is stated as bringing Obama to power and "keep the Clinton Machine as muted as possible," protested:Stanley, offering no examples of those "plenty of viewers," apparently forgot about Clinton's concession speech, her speech at the Democratic National Convention, or the following night when she moved that Barack Obama be "selected by this convention by acclamation." Apparently in Stanley's mind, none of those very public statements, nor the campaigning Clinton did for Obama, counted.Contact Alessandra Stanley.
Update: Add the Washington Monthly to the list.
When the press figures out that Clinton was merely a diversion by Obama to keep them occupied 24/7 they are really going to be pissed and really let the Clintons have it. If they figure it out. Guess Drudge or Broder will have to tell them.
December 4, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Broder is so blinded by his Clinton (they trashed the place!) obsession that he probably can't see the end of his nose.
But he's the Dean, so I guess that means something.
December 4, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
My favorite is this part:
So, lemme see if I get this: he's proved the assertion "plenty of viewers" to be inaccurate ... by pointing to the equally BSish "Almost nobody in the real world". Sheesh.
I'd argue the fact that this post (and the ones you reference) even exists shows more than a few people outside the media remain wholly obsessed with Clinton. Some seem unable to generate posts on any other topic ;).
Srsly though, I've been enjoying your posts. Totally stoked the no-comment wars ended.
December 4, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a weird argument, since you assume that the posts that I linked to come from people obsessed with Clinton. How could you accuse Boehlert, for example, as proof of Clinton obsession, when he defends Obama as much or more often than Clinton?
And how can you imply that defending Clinton every time a substantiated charge is leveled against her is a form of obsessioon? Plus Boehlert refers to the media obsession.
December 4, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You miss the real point. The biggest point was that the guy uses the exact same lazy device to try and criticize someone for using a lazy device. I thought it funny - regardless of the subject at hand.
The other part was more a bit of tongue-in-cheek snark than anything - I've rarely seen you post on any other subject.
But now that you mention it, Boehlert's argument is that only the media has an obsession with Clinton - people in the "real world" don't. All of the people you referenced were not traditional media - all of them pouncing on a trivial assertion from a friggin TV critic. It seems to me that if a stupid TV critic can cause that big a firestorm of response from people in the "real world" that there is a shared obsession.
Some folks are obsessed with criticizing her, others obsessed with defending her. Both are obsessions.
December 4, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of laziness, you lie when you claim not to have seen me talk about other subject, unless you signed up today. I can break down my last 10 posts, my last 20 posts and show you the abundance of entries I have dedicated to other issues or individuals. The posts about Clinton are a minority. Now go to the archives and tell me what you (really) see.
December 4, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right ... it was lazy. But I didn't say never, I said rarely. It's probably because the Clinton ones are the ones that go up the 'rec list.
In my defense ... I did point out that it was tongue-in-cheek snark. I meant it in a good natured fashion.
Peace.
December 4, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its the NYT version of Fox News trademark "Some people say . . ." method of newsifying fringenut personal opinion.
December 4, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, there is evidence that you misrepresented Boehlert's meaning of the term "media obsession". His claim was accompanied by a link to a Gallup poll asking whether people approved or disapproved of Clinton as SOS. It had nothing to do with the amount of time spent talking about Clinton. This proves that Boehlert referred to the media's ludicrous notion (not shared by the public) that Clinton is a bad official to have in the Obama administration.
December 4, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this to me? I never challenged the notion that more people approve of Clinton at SoS than disapprove. Since I approve (and I rarely approve of ANYTHING), I'll bet that's pretty accurate.
But that's sort of changing from the original premise of your post. Your complaint isn't that Alessandra Stanley makes assertions on people's approval of Clinton @ SoS. Her premise is that Hillary's acceptance is final closure to some ("plenty") people on the competition between her and Obama (poorly worded to be sure).
I'm not endorsing her view, just making an observation.
December 4, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess that if 2 people hold a view it would be prudent to write an article on them calling them "plenty".
Have you seen anyone hint that Clinton's acceptance represented a concession? If so, how many? Plenty?
Stanley shows nothing and no one to back her assertion.
And here's the topic of my latest entries. Let's see how hard it really is to find me speaking about something other than Hillary (from most recent to oldest):
Clinton
Clinton
Bill Kristol
Josh Marshall
Joe Klein
John McCain and Barack Obama
Lee Harvey Oswald
Joe Lieberman
Clinton
Clinton
Tom Wright
Olbermann
several posts about Olbermann.
Can you see it now?
December 4, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this becoming a trend, or has it always been the "in" thing and I have simply missed it? It seems the MSM has a problem with numbers. Your Favorite Pundit finds a poll where 10% of respondents agree with YFP, at which point YFP blathers all over the air, print, and net that "many people blah blah blah", while completely neglecting to mention that 90% of people think YFP is an asshat.
Someone needs to teach these people some basic math. While 10% of, say, 25 million is indeed "many", it is by no means most and is, in fact, still only 10% of the population.
Actually, what it is is an inflated ego; the inability of YFP to accept the fact that not everyone agrees with them. They do not understand, or do not care, that using language that assumes agreement does not alter reality.
TS, I believe it was you who posted (maybe yesterday?) an article about how "many disagree" with Clinton at SoS, because 12% didn't like the pick. Never mind the 88% who did, which is a pretty friggin' high approval rating in the world of politics, they would say the same thing if it was 95%.
Tonight on the MSM, Making Mountain out of Molehills.
December 4, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that was a post about a lady who hangs out in the Hannity show and writes in the New York Post, who said many Obama supporters were angered at appointing HRC.
Your analysis raises a good question: Why didn't Stanley highlight the number of people who DID NOT see her acceptance as a concession? Take TPM, for example. I have not heard one reader, even among those who criticized Obama's move, advancing the "fake concession/real concession" theory invented by Stanley. I heard some say that Richardson was better, that she lacked experience, that Wesley Clark was better, that dynasties are not good, etc., but not Stanley's claim.
December 4, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is either confirmation bias (i.e., a couple other people agreed w/her and she discounted everyone else) or the intense desire and pressure to get the "scoop".
Hell, it is already happening with Caroline Kennedy. Just because her name was mentioned, basically in passing, all of a sudden everyone is saying "Caroline Kennedy could get Hillary's seat."
December 6, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is your point here? Bad media, bad left, bad Stanley?
Strikes me as a metaphor that got out of hand, and no more.
December 4, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of zeroes and ones are needlessly dying over the truth or falsity of what a TV critic had to say about the broadcast of a political announcement.
Truthseeker, why are you so obsessed about quantifying how many people agree or disagree with you on a particular issue?
Any assessment of what goes on in Hillary's mind is totally subjective anyway.
If Alessandra Stanley says, "Plenty of people" think X or Y, who cares? It's unquantifiable -- and, more important, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
If someone states publicly "Most people think ..." or "a majority think ...," then they really should be able to back that up with poll numbers -- not that polls are particularly reliable.
But what some people think about what other people think is not data, It's just more f-ing opinion.
So your attempt to prove Stanley wrong by citing five other people who think she is wrong is, to put it gently, some sort of logical fallacy.
I'll accept as fact that "plenty of people think Alessandra Stanley is an asshat."
That doesn't make her an asshat.
Personally, I think Hillary was unacceptably slow to accept her primary defeat. But she has increasingly shown her willingness to be an Obama team player. Yesterday was not her first real "concession."
But maybe in the circles Stanley runs in, there are "plenty" of people who think otherwise.
I've got no problem with her stating that.
And neither should you.
As Mao says, let a thousand flowers bloom.
December 5, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
acanuck conveniently chooses not to trash Eric Boehlert, because I'm his target. So now all of a sudden it's me, not these bloggers, who "try to prove Stanley wrong".
Try both the bloggers and I. And no, she provides no evidence to back up her claim that "plenty" of viewers think. And by the way, you use "TV Critic" as if it were some sort of irrelevant term. She is the New York Times TV Critic. That's a big job.
December 6, 2008 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, my genius friend acanuck, nice prediction there, on November 15th, that Hillary had "screwed up her chances" to become Secretary of State.
December 6, 2008 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink