Don't Know What to do About Yoo

As an update to my previous post about the Philadelphia Inquirer adding John "Mr. Torture" Yoo to its opinion pages -- The Conservative Corner -- there has been quite the reaction from near & far.

As the NYTimes notes, Ire Over a Columnist, an Author of Torture Memos:

When The Philadelphia Inquirer hired as its new opinion columnist John C. Yoo, an author of the Bush administration’s widely criticized legal memos on harsh interrogation techniques, it was probably inevitable that the decision would draw complaints.

The surprise was that it took months to provoke much reaction, in part because it took that long for readers to realize that Mr. Yoo, a Philadelphia native, was not an occasional contributor, as he had been for years, but a regular monthly fixture at the paper. The Inquirer hired him last fall for a year, but did not make a splashy public announcement, as it did in 2007, with former Senator Rick Santorum, who writes every two weeks.

As the Times added:

Harold Jackson, The Inquirer’s editorial page editor, said he was surprised by the sudden delayed anger directed his way over Mr. Yoo. He said the decision to hire a columnist was his, but that “Mr. Yoo was suggested by the publisher,” Brian Tierney.

“There was a conscious effort on our part to counter some of the criticism of The Inquirer as being a knee-jerk liberal publication,” Mr. Jackson said. “We made a conscious effort to add some conservative voices to our mix.”

A knee-jerk liberal publication? The only people who could possibly think that are those who stopped reading it long ago. The more recent people driven away did so because it was anything but. Will Bunch noted, in Definitely not a "knee-jerk liberal publication": "I kind of thought they'd already dispelled that 'knee-jerk liberal' thing by hiring Rick Santorum, Michael Smerconish, etc., but maybe that's just me."

As for Jackson being surprised about delayed anger? Gee, I don't suppose it might have had anything to do with the fact that no one knew. As Steve Benen says, YOO CAN'T BE SERIOUS:

This doesn't work at all. First, there was "delayed anger" because no one knew -- and the paper didn't announce -- that the Inquirer had actually hired Yoo until this past weekend. As a rule, people rarely complain about a development before learning about it.

And if that's not enough, the coup d'grace was:

Post Script: Tierney told the NYT few of his readers actually care about this: "I've gotten more mail recently on our making our comics smaller than I have on John Yoo." Here's hoping that changes fairly soon.

Blogger Philebrity proposes that we locals take action to express our displeasure through a boycott of the Inky so long as Yoo Know Who is part of the paper, Editorial: Boycott The Philadelphia Inquirer.:

But to give voice to one of the architects of one of America’s darkest moments ever is simply a bridge too far. As readers and colleagues in the media (however much some Inky folks might want to deny that simple fact), we are, to put it plainly, disgusted. This city has taken a lot of abuse from the Philadelphia Inquirer over the years, and via its ongoing Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, it stands to take more — who knows how much local businesses will get stiffed when all is said and done? This is more than insult to injury. To even have Yoo’s voice emanating from this city’s presupposed paper of record is a blight upon Philadelphia itself. And it’s here that we say, “Enough.” Please join us in boycotting the Philadelphia Inquirer from this point forward — both in physical form AND online — until the paper sees fit to remove John Yoo from its pages, and encourage others to do so as well.

On the other hand, Mary Shaw of Philadelphia Freedom Blog opposes the boycott, Why I oppose the Inquirer boycott:

In this country, John Yoo has the right to spew his vile nonsense, and the Inky has every right to publish his distasteful content. I don't have to read Yoo's columns if I don't want to. But I might want to. Because a key to defeating one's opponents in an argument is to understand the opponent's thought processes.

Hopefully Yoo's columns can provide us with some insights into the psyche of the torturer, and hopefully we can use those insights constructively to present better arguments to counter Yoo's talking points.

That is where we can be truly effective. Rather than boycotting the Inky, we should read each and every one of Yoo's columns. And we should respond to each column en masse with well-reasoned and well-written letters to the editor, in great enough numbers to ensure that some will get published.

I certainly agree with Mary Shaw's sentiments, but I know that there is no way that I would waste my time with the likes of Yoo (or Santorum). In my view, some ideas are so outside the realm of reason that they are worth responding to. In fact, I think part of the problem with our discourse today is that we have given a forum to people whose extremist views should never have received a platform.

I am definitely more in the boycott camp. I have chronicled the decline of the Inky since its purchase by PR mogul Brian Tierney in May of 2006. At various times, I have been annoyed enough to want to stop getting the paper -- like when Rick Santorum was hired. My husband was even willing to do so, even though he prefers to read the actual paper than the on-line version. The quality has also declined, much like the size of the paper itself, but there are still those reporters who manage to do a great job despite what has to be trying conditions. It is for that reason that I still hesitate to pull the plug. But I'm still thinking about it.

As for Tierney, I wish him nothing but the worst. And he is getting it from all over, since Inky's stance has earned it some delicious scorn. Gawker expresses it best, Philly Paper Has 'Only Despicable Republicans' Hiring Policy:

The Philadelphia Inquirer is a bankrupt paper run by a greedy Republican flack. They're going to save themselves by hiring America's most unpopular and/ or idiotic Republicans as columnists:

John Yoo, the Bush lawyer most famous for his Torture Memos, is now a bylined Inquirer columnist. Let's examine a list of the paper's recent high-profile Op-Ed page hirings:

• John Yoo.
• Rick Santorum.

See also, Did I Miss the Part Where John Yoo Actually Matters?

For more opinion on the issue, see:

Is Philly Inquirer also OK with Yoo's hypocrisy?

The Philadelphia Inquirer and John Yoo

The Philadelphia Inquirer and Yoo

What's the Matter With Yoo?

The fact that I had to read about it elsewhere is perhaps most telling of all.

The editorial/op-ed section used to be the first stop on my daily perusal of the paper, which I read front-to-back (other than the sports section). No more. In fact, I no longer read the opinion pages of the Inquirer -- what I now not-so-affectionately refer to as the "Conservative Corner" of the paper.

In a recent piece by Steven Reynolds on Why the Philadelphia Inquirer is in Bankruptcy and its hiring of Rick Santorum as a columnist (coincidence? I think not), I commented:

Not to mention that Philly is a strongly Democratic town & the editorial page is now a GOP rag (I stopped reading it a while ago). Santorum, Krauthammer & Smerconish on the same masthead makes one think of the Washington (”Moonie”) Times, not the Inky.

[Brian] Tierney is supposedly trying to appeal to the suburbanites who were turned off by the “liberal bent” of the Inky, but he misunderstands that most don’t hold his hard right views. What’s particularly ironic about the choice of Santorum is that he was mainly defeated because the republicans in SE PA rejected his brand of conservationism. And, of course, it doesn’t help that he can’t express a complete thought in a rational manner.

Despite that, I was still surprised by the most recent addition to the Conservative Corner -- none other than Mr. Torture himself, John Yoo.

As Will Bunch reveals in his AttyTood blog, Inquirer defends the indefensible: A monthly column by torture architect John Yoo:

By late last year, the world already knew a great deal about John Yoo, the Philadelphia native and conservative legal scholar whose tenure in the Bush administration as a top Justice Department lawyer lies at the root of the period of greatest peril to the U.S. Constitution in modern memory. It was widely known in 2008, for example, that Yoo had argued for presidential powers far beyond anything either real or implied in the Constitution -- that the commander-in-chief could trample the powers of Congress or a free press in an endless undeclared war, or that the 4th Amendment barring unreasonable search and seizure didn't apply in fighting what Yoo called domestic terrorism.

Most famously, Yoo was known as the author of the infamous "torture memos" that in 2002 and 2003 gave the Bush and Cheney the legal cover to violate the human rights of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, based on the now mostly ridiculed claim that international and U.S. laws against such torture practices did not apply. Working closely with Dick Cheney, Cheney's staff and others, Yoo set into motion the brutal actions that left a deep, indelible stain on the American soul.

Yet none of that was enough to prevent my colleagues upstairs at the Philadelphia Inquirer -- with none of the fanfare that might normally accompany such a move -- to sign a contract with Yoo in late 2008 to give him a regular monthly column.

* * * *

Because Yoo's working arrangement with the Inquirer was never formally announced, even people who work here at 400 North Broad Street, the home of the Daily News and Inquirer,weren't immediately aware (myself included)that Yoo was now a regular columnist, joining an increasingly rightward-tilting lineup that also includes the likes ex-Sen. Rick Santorum (at $1,750 a pop), Michael Smerconish, a moderate Republican who is also a forceful advocate for torture, Kevin Ferris and others.

I've already written about the what's the matter with Yoo many times in the past, including a riff on an earlier op-ed piece, Yoo What?, in which Yoo audaciously argued that the Supreme Court exceeded its authority by deciding issues of constitutional import in a manner that did not give sufficient weight to the President -- or even Congress. Of course, I'm sure he'd concede the error of his ways, now that there's a President of a different color in the House (that is, blue rather than red, of course). See also, The Horror of Yoo and Yoo Who.

Yoo's latest dribble for the Inky is to echo the latest GOP talking point, that "empathy" is not a qualification for the Supreme Court. John Yoo Argues for Neutrality, Needs Empathy. According to Orin Hatch, empathy is Code for activist. I realize that empathy is not a word in the conservative vocabulary. Not surprisingly, the Republicans believe that you have to be cold, cruel and souless in order to serve on the Court (think Thomas, Scalia and Alito).

Jonathan Valania of Phawker also has a compendium of opinion on the Inquirer's hiring of Yoo, HECKUVA JOB TIERNEY: Why Is THIS Man Bloviating About Supreme Court Replacements In The Inquirer?. As he says:

First Santorum, now Yoo. Increasingly, the Inquirer’s editorial page has become the place where the last eight years go to die. What’s next? Replacing Craig LaBan with Dick Cheney? Tom DeLay’s pitbull movie reviews? Karl Rove reviving the Marley & Me franchise?

One good thing. Yoo doesn't need a law license to write his discredited opinions on the law, so if Pennsylvania were to disbar him, as has apparently been recommended by the report for the DOJ on torture, he could still pontificate to the readers of the Inky, who appear to be matching the numbers of the GOP itself -- an ever downward spiral.

Going Once, Going Twice

The obituaries for newspapers have come fast & furiously of late -- some due to the actual closure of papers, others from essays predicting the end of newspapers generally. Based upon the latest circulation figures, the prophesied demise of newsprint is certainly supported. According to E&P, New FAS-FAX Shows (More) Steep Circulation Losses:

The Audit Bureau of Circulations released this morning the spring figures for the six months ending March 31, 2009, showing that the largest metros continue to shed daily and Sunday circulation -- now at a record rate.

According to ABC, for 395 newspapers reporting this spring, daily circulation fell 7% to 34,439,713 copies, compared with the same March period in 2008. On Sunday, for 557 newspapers, circulation was down 5.3% to 42,082,707. These averages do not include 84 newspapers with circulations below 50,000 due to a change in publishing frequency.

The NYTimes and Washington Post were the only papers spared the deep decline:

Daily circulation at The New York Times dropped 3.5% to 1,039,031. The Times' Sunday circ was down 1.7% to 1,451,233.

The Washington Post lost 1.6% of its daily circ to 665,383 and 2.3% to 868,965.

Of course, there is no end to reasons why, with the rise of the internet proffered as the main culprit. Yet that's just an easy excuse to avoid looking at the real reason for the failure of newspapers, which is the decline in providing real news and reportage that the public finds useful. As Will Bunch of Attytood said in another context, which applies here as well:

For the most part, we've failed so far. It was more than a little disheartening to learn of the crippling fear inside the newsroom of the New York Times, where editors and reporters were so afraid of offending, so afraid of anyone thinking that the newspaper was taking a side, that the news staffers refused to label globally outlawed practices such as waterboarding as "torture."

* * * *

Almost every flaw of our craft has been on display in the last week or two -- the pleading for a middle-of-the-road answer to a problem where there is no middle ground, the phony "he said, she said" journalism that gives a 50 percent voice to the advocates of American-bred torture, the use of unnecessary anonymous quotes to defend the indefensible, the need for an elite inside-the-Beltway clique to circle the wagons, to insist that aggressive prosecution is only for the crimes that "regular people" commit.

In other words, perhaps journalists should have been exposing torture rather than figuring out what to call it?

See also, Are newspapers to blame for their own demise?.

And then there are the statistics for Philly's own local paper, the Inky:

The Philadelphia Inquirer lost 13.7% of its daily circulation to 288,298. Sunday was hit just as hard, down 12% to 550,400. Daily circulation at its sister publication the Daily News fell 7.6% to 99,103.

The struggles of the Inquirer (and Daily News) are longstanding, with the paper currently in bankruptcy. It was just about 2 years ago that the papers were bought by a group led by adman extraordinaire Brian Tierney. See The Good News and Bad News. Since then, he has managed to make the paper a shadow of its former self. As I noted not long ago:

I hardly read the print version anymore (although we still get it delivered because my husband likes to read an actual newspaper). Except for one or two articles on the front page, the entire front section of the paper consists of reprints of AP, NYTimes and Washington Post articles. I can read those at the original source, so why bother reading them on a delayed basis in the paper? Even the opinion section mostly carries reprints of op ed pieces from elsewhere, along with the likes of Rick Santorum -- just the sort of outlandish conservative that a liberal town like Philly wants, so I skip over that too. The only thing worth reading is the Local section, to see what is happening in the region. Sometimes, I let the paper pile up over a few days and then just skim through to see what, if anything, is worth reading. This from a person who used to read 5 papers daily (including the Inky), from cover to cover! Overall, with cutbacks in staff and content, the old Philly paper ain't what she used to be.

He has implemented such brilliant moves as imitating the Metro, a free local paper, by adding an "express section" of the paper, summarizing what's covered in the paper elsewhere. The Reader's News Digest. I suppose it may also have been needed to fill up the pages with the missing news from reporters who had been laid off.

Another good move by Tierney was the decision to hold posting news and article on-line until the paper version was printed and delivered -- a great way to stay relevant in a digital world. I guess Tierney adopted the "if you can't fight it, resist it" theory of journalism. However, as co-founder of the Huffington Post, Ken Lerer observed at a recent lecture, Tough Love with Ken Lerer:

Kenneth Lerer to newspapers: You blew it.

The media executive and Huffington Post co-founder, in a lecture he delivered last night to a packed audience at Columbia’s J-School, pulled few punches when it came to newspapers’ culpability for the crisis in which they now find themselves. In the years when the expansion of the Web made it clear that news had an online future—the years when they should have adapted to that future, Lerer said—papers “barricaded themselves in an echo chamber.” Losing, in the process, not only their perspective on the future of news, but also their claim on it.

And then there was the Inky's piece de la resistance, the addition of Rick Santorum to the op-ed page. A brilliant move by Tierney, as I noted before:

I wonder if Inky owner/publisher Brian Tierney is channeling that other great rightwing media mogul, Richard Mellon Scaife, in trying to follow his vision of a publishing empire -- by creating a vast right wing conspiracy like Mellon Scaife. For a glimpse at Tierney, see Inquire No More. It hardly needs to be said that Philly is heavily democratic, but even the Philly 'burbs are trending Democrat these days and most of the remaining Republicans are hardly of the extremist ilk of Santorum. Considering the "popularity" of Santorum in this area (and his overwhelming loss in his last Senate race is further proof of that), it doesn't make sense to alienate so many of your readers at a time that you are trying to increase readership. And Santorum most certainly will -- it's his persona.

In fact, I'm sure for all his efforts on behalf of the paper, Tierney deserves yet another bonus. After all, where would the paper be without him?

That's Not the Way It's Supposed To Be

I'm sure mostly everyone has seen The Daily Show's interview of Jim Cramer by Jon Stewart by now, which had been hyped for some time and has been the "talk of the town" afterward.

As many people have noted, it was not at all what I expected. Based upon the build-up, I thought I might be a little like the Stewart-Colbert-Conan showdown from last year, with Cramer & Stewart tussling a little bit and then kissing & making up. Instead, it was a seriously pointed indictment of the genre, where the Cramers acted as cheerleaders for the market rather than providing the public an informative, watchdog role of Wall Street.

Here's the full interview:



The uncut version of the Cramer interview is a must see (rather than the Show's cut down version). Unfortunately, this interview may well be "Exhibit A" as to why journalism is fairing so poorly (even before the economic downturn). It takes a "comedian" like Jon Stewart to do the work of journalists -- print or otherwise. Newspapers have become scriveners, reprinting press releases, rather than providing independent reporting (calling out the prevaricators). And TV news? Pure entertainment. Not much difference between Meet the Press and Entertainment Tonight, other than the fact that one deals with Hollywood and the other DC.

Glenn Greenwald likewise remarks upon the fallacy of the financial reporting programs (which applies to straight reporting as well -- a la the lack of critical reporting in the run up to the War). When Cramer tries to justify his bad calls, saying he was misled by the CEOs of the companies, Stewart calls him on it, There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer:

That's the heart of the (completely justifiable) attack on Cramer and CNBC by Stewart. They would continuously put scheming CEOs on their shows, conduct completely uncritical "interviews" and allow them to spout wholesale falsehoods. And now that they're being called upon to explain why they did this, their excuse is: Well, we were lied to. What could we have done? And the obvious answer, which Stewart repeatedly expressed, is that people who claim to be "reporters" are obligated not only to provide a forum for powerful people to make claims, but also to then investigate those claims and then to inform the public if the claims are true. That's about as basic as it gets.

As the LATimes observes in its aptly captioned piece, Jon Stewart can be funny -- until he's interviewing you:

Forgoing his typically caustic humor, a serious and at times angry Stewart eviscerated Cramer for jocularly discussing how to manipulate the stock market and slammed CNBC as an ineffective watchdog of Wall Street.

In the process, the host of "The Daily Show" provided one of those memorable television moments that distill the public mood -- in this case, angst about the economy's swift decline. Stewart also displayed the tough interviewing skills that belie his insistence that he's merely an entertainer.

* * * *

The much-hyped showdown between the two men grew out of a bit last week on "The Daily Show" in which Stewart satirized CNBC's coverage of the market as overly credulous. But by the end of Cramer's appearance on the late-night program Thursday, the episode was being cast as a triumph for Stewart and a public relations disaster for CNBC, which airs Cramer's show, "Mad Money."

James Fallows of the Atlantic declared that Stewart "has become Edward R. Murrow," while Rick Aristotle Munarriz of the investor website the Motley Fool concluded that "financial journalism's biggest celebrity looked defeated." Stewart even got a shout-out from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who praised him for asking "a lot of tough questions."

" 'The Daily Show' has delivered a reminder of the need for independent-minded journalism -- and in the process rendered CNBC a laughingstock to many casual viewers that might not have afforded the channel much thought previously," Brian Lowry wrote on Variety.com.

Stewart was certainly on target, as the Times noted:

Stewart, who pressed Cramer about comments he made during a 2006 interview with TheStreet .com in which he casually discussed how to manipulate stock prices.

"I understand you want to make finance entertaining," the comedian said. "But it's not a . . . game. And when I watch that, I can't tell you how angry that makes me."

Stewart acknowledged that his ire was aimed more broadly at CNBC and the financial press in general for not alerting the public to the market's highly leveraged structure.

"To pretend that this was some sort of crazy once-in-a-lifetime tsunami that nobody could have seen coming is disingenuous at best and criminal at worst," he said.

My husband, who has always considered my devotion to Stewart/Colbert to be odd, watched the Cramer interview yesterday and admitted that he had a new admiration for Stewart, as an intelligent, serious, compassionate journalist.

And thanks to Andrew Sullivan, he can peruse some of Stewart's other rants on the media, The Accidental Activist:

Jon Stewart has, of course, been on the warpath with his fellow media stars for many years now. A reader offers some helpful links: the Crossfire showdown, the Blitzer take-down, the worst interview in Chris Matthews' life, and the sinking of Jonah's whale. Good times.

I guess it just confirms why Jon Stewart has been considered one of the most trusted names in journalism. See Who You Gonna Trust?. He's earned it.

O'Wicked

I realize Bill O'Reilly's shtick is to mouth off, with as many vile and hateful thoughts as possible, but his gratuitous nastiness towards journalist Helen Thomas was truly despicable. Is there no minimum level of respect for anyone from these people? O'Reilly called reporter Helen Thomas the "wicked witch of the east" Monday night after Obama's press conference.

And then there was "Helen Thomas' fifteen minutes were up during the Lincoln administration," from Bernie Goldberg (whoever he is), who added: "It's time for Helen to find something else to do during press conferences."

As Bonnie Erbe of US News & World Reports describes O'Reilly, "an angry homunculus who's outlived his useful life span."

O'Reilly: The White House press corps looked intimidated to me... Except for that, what's her name? The old lady, Helen Thomas. [squawking sound]

Colmes: Is that your Helen Thomas impression?

O'Reilly: Yea! [squawking sound]

Colmes: I didn't know you did impersonations.

O'Reilly: It's like the wicked witch of the east! If I were Obama, I would've poured water on her, and she would dissolve!

Colmes: It's not nice to make fun of an old woman, Bill.

O'Reilly: It doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter and neither does O'Reilly.

(Via Crooks and Liars)

Twitterifick

This is the best. The Huffington Post reports, Twitters Hacked: Bill O'Reilly, Rick Sanchez, Britney Spears:

A flurry of high-profile Twitter accounts have been hacked, most prominently the Fox News account, which has declared that Bill O'Reilly is gay.

Fox News' Twitter posted an update, since deleted, Monday morning announcing, "Bill O Riley is gay."

CNN's Rick Sanchez, a prominent Twitter user, was also hacked. His malicious tweet read, "i am high on crack right now might not be coming to work today."

Britney Spears's Twitter also fell victim, with hackers announcing that her vagina is "4 feet wide with razor sharp teeth."

Oh Mandy, this one is definitely for you!

A Times for Change

Some people who received The New York Times yesterday may have thought they died & went to heaven. The headlines were a liberal's fantasy -- with a headline “IRAQ WAR ENDS” !!

Other headlines abound: USA Patriot Act Repealed, National Health Insurance Act Passes, Universities to be free! Bike paths to be expanded! Thomas Friedman to resign, to the delight of dirty hippy liberal bloggers everywhere.

The paper is dated July 4, 2009, and imagines a liberal utopia of a rebuilt economy, progressive taxation, a national oil fund to study climate change, and other goals of progressive politics.

For a minute there, I'm sure some of the Obamaniacs must have thought that the election of Barack Obama as President really in and of itself acted as a change agent.

Unfortunately, as that stodgy, stinky other Times reports, Liberal Pranksters Hand Out Times Spoof:

Sorry, folks, the paper isn’t free. And the Iraq war isn’t over, at least not yet.

In an elaborate hoax, pranksters distributed thousands of free copies of a spoof edition of The New York Times on Wednesday morning at busy subway stations around the city, including Grand Central Terminal, Washington and Union Squares, the 14th and 23rd Street stations along Eighth Avenue, and Pacific Street in Brooklyn, among others.

* * * *

The hoax was accompanied by a Web site that mimics the look of The Times’s real Web site. A page of the spoof site contained links to dozens of progressive organizations, which were also listed in the print edition.

* * * *

The Associated Press reported that copies of the spoof paper were also handed out in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia and Washington, and that the pranksters — who included a film promoter, three unnamed Times employees and Steven Lambert, an art professor — financed the paper with small online contributions and created the paper to urge President-elect Barack Obama to keep his campaign promises.

* * * *

According to The A.P., software and Internet support were provided by the Yes Men, who were the subject of a 2004 documentary film.

See also, Fake New York Times Declares Iraq War Over! Here's Who Did It and Massive Liberal Conspiracy Behind Fake Times.

My husband was in New York yesterday for business & I called & asked him to try to get one, but no luck.

The Return of Helen

I'm sorry to say that I didn't know she was gone, but I'm happy to see that, as Huffington Post puts it, Helen Thomas Returns To White House To Harass Obama.

She was gone for some time due to health issues, but Helen Thomas comes back -- just in time to "welcome" Obama. Although she said she voted for him, I have no doubt she won't cut him any slack. She's already asking why he's hiring all these old Clinton cronies, inquiring doesn't he know anybody?

As anyone who knows me knows, I love Helen Thomas. See, e.g. If Cheney Becomes President, I'll Kill Myself and No Gentle Good Night for Her, Thomas the Terrible. See also, Hats Off to Helen.

The Sarah Show

Maybe Sarah Palin does have a TV career if (when?) she loses her quest for Vice President in 4 days -- as a comedian. She certainly does have a habit of making me laugh.

The latest:

ABC News' Steven Portnoy reports: In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.

See Palin Fears Media Threaten Her First Amendment Rights.

Her latest foray into silliness reminded me of an episode that occurred several years ago. It's one of my favorite legal war stories.

I was involved in a particularly contentious legal negotiation, with a lawyer who was a total jerk, a "BALDie" if I may. Unfortunately for him, his client wasn't in a very good bargaining position and even worse, he wasn't a very good advocate. All bluster, no substance. As much as I try not to indulge, there are times when the former litigator in me comes out when dealing with a stupid bully on the other side. I'll often try to let things go for a while, but then at some point I say basta, enough. I admit that I have sometimes been known to be a fierce advocate for my clients. Words like tough, aggressive, withering and of course, bitch, have all come my way over the years. So, things got pretty ugly, with accusations being hurled by client and lawyer alike.

Then one day, this lawyer called me and announced that he wouldn't deal with me anymore. He demanded that I transfer the case to one of the other lawyers in my firm. I couldn't help it, I just laughed at him. As I said to him, my client chose me as his attorney and I would serve in that role so long as he wanted me too. And, if anything, the fact that I was able to drive opposing counsel crazy would no doubt endear me to my client even more. As I laughingly reminded him, he didn't get to pick opposing counsel. I told him that it was too bad -- he didn't have to like me, but he had to deal with me. If he couldn't handle it, perhaps he should suggest that his client find another lawyer. But so long as he was there, he was stuck with me.

This came to mind when I heard Palin whining about the press criticizing her attacks on Obama and his scary "associates." Glenn Greenwald explains the silliness of her position from a legal perspective, Sarah Palin speaks on the First Amendment:

The First Amendment is actually not that complicated. It can be read from start to finish in about 10 seconds. It bars the Government from abridging free speech rights. It doesn't have anything to do with whether you're free to say things without being criticized, or whether you can comment on blogs without being edited, or whether people can bar you from their private planes because they don't like what you've said.

If anything, Palin has this exactly backwards, since one thing that the First Amendment does actually guarantee is a free press. Thus, when the press criticizes a political candidate and a Governor such as Palin, that is a classic example of First Amendment rights being exercised, not abridged.

Of course, as Greenwald notes, the First Amendment was intended to prevent the government (that's you Governor, VP wannabe) from suppressing the speech of the public and the press. But no one is arguing that the First Amendment doesn't in fact apply to Palin as well, permitting her to express her point of view -- intelligible or otherwise. But her suggestion that her uttered words are protected -- sacred -- and that her detractors are somehow prohibited from challenging her under the 1st Amendment is what's laughable.

Palin's response called to mind that lawyer who didn't want to deal with me. Palin certainly is free to say what she wants, but that doesn't mean that the press -- and the public -- can't find her silly or stupid (or both) and respond accordingly. She can speak her mind, but no one is required to like what she says. She just has to deal with it -- or shut up.

_____________

(Photo outside the entrance to my office, courtesy of one of the LLWL Gang)

(BALDie = Big Asshole, Little Dick)

The Case of the Disappearing (L)ink

As always seems to be the case when John McCain is involved, there is the story, the real story and the role of the press in the story. Such is the case with the recent revelations of the story of Cindy McCain's addiction problem in the '90s.

Apparently, a story was posted on the Washington Post, which was later mysteriously withdrawn, leaving only an empty link behind. See, The Case of the Missing 'Post' Posting (Probably) Solved!. The story was later re-posted by the WP, but not an accompanying video or documents.

Eventually, like the caption on the piece, A Tangled Story of Addiction, after a tangled road to virtual print, the fascinating real story has emerged about Cindy McCain's drug problem. As the WP article notes, her difficulties with drug addiction, and the cover-up of her problem, impacted many lives besides her own:

In describing her struggle with drugs, McCain has said that she became addicted to Vicodin and Percocet in early 1989 after rupturing two disks and having back surgery. She has said she hid her addiction from her husband, Sen. John McCain, and stopped taking the painkillers in 1992 after her parents confronted her. She has not discussed what kind of treatment she received for her addiction, but she has made clear that she believes she has put her problems behind her.

While McCain's accounts have captured the pain of her addiction, her journey through this personal crisis is a more complicated story than she has described, and it had more consequences for her and those around her than she has acknowledged.

True, that. According to Amy Silverman, who was a reporter for the Phoenix New Times paper at the time of the original revelations, described her version of the story for Salon, How Cindy McCain was outed for drug addiction:

GOP presidential candidate John McCain's wife Cindy took to the airwaves last week, recounting for Jane Pauley (on 'Dateline') and Diane Sawyer (on 'Good Morning America') the tale of her onetime addiction to Percocet and Vicodin, and the fact that she stole the drugs from her own nonprofit medical relief organization.

It was a brave and obviously painful thing to do.

It was also vintage McCain media manipulation.

I had deja vu watching Cindy McCain on television, perky in a purple suit with tinted pearls to match. It was so reminiscent of the summer day in 1994 when suddenly, years after she'd claimed to have kicked her habit, McCain decided to come clean to the world about her addiction to prescription painkillers.

I believe she wore red that day. She granted semi-exclusive interviews to one TV station and three daily newspaper reporters in Arizona, tearfully recalling her addiction, which came about after painful back and knee problems and was exacerbated by the stress of the Keating Five banking scandal that had ensnared her husband. To make matters worse, McCain admitted, she had stolen the drugs from the American Voluntary Medical Team, her own charity, and had been investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

As expected, the favored press responded with favorable renditions of the story of poor Cindy. However, not surprisingly, they weren't given all of the facts. As Silverman explains:

What McEachern and the others didn't know was that, far from being a simple, honest admission designed to clear her conscience and help other addicts, Cindy McCain's storytelling had been orchestrated by Jay Smith, then John McCain's Washington campaign media advisor. And it was intended to divert attention from a different story, a story that was getting quite messy.

I know, because I had been working on that story for months at Phoenix New Times. I had finally tracked down the public records that confirmed Cindy McCain's addiction and much more, and the McCains knew I was about to get them. Cindy's tale was released on the day the records were made public.

But the story I was pursuing was not so much about Cindy McCain's unfortunate addiction. It was much more about her efforts to keep that story from coming to light, and the possible manipulation of the criminal justice system by her husband and his cohorts.

Silverman's original story was carried in the alternative weekly New Times, Opiate for the Mrs.. It tells a very different tale that the fairy tale promoted by the McCains. Cindy McCain managed to avoid a 20 year mandatory minimum sentence for her drug use (you know, those mandatory minimums that Republicans like so much?), the physician who volunteered for her charity and wrote the illegal scripts for her lost his license and she fired the man, Tom Gosinski, who turned her in to the DEA for abusing drugs, after he discovered that she used his name on certain scripts. When he sued for wrongful termination, she went after him with a vengence and made sure he had a difficult time finding new employment.

After a 15 year silence (in part, due to fear of retaliation from the McCains), Gosinski -- a conservative republican -- has come forward to expose the Real McCain(s). See Whistleblower breaks 15-year silence to allege McCain hid wife's drug abuse.

The question is whether the press will look at the story differently today. Based upon the burps involved in the Washington Post getting the story out, I'm not hopeful

The Real McCain

Now that he has secured the nomination for President, John McCain has certainly come into his own. And it appears as though the Real John McCain is finally being exposed.

As Steve Benen observes:

It's oddly reassuring to see others reach the same conclusion. Josh Marshall:

All politicians stretch the truth, massage it into the best fit with their message. But, let's face it, John McCain is running a campaign almost entirely based on straight up lies. Not just exaggerations or half truths but the sort of straight up, up-is-down mind-blowers we've become so accustomed to from the current occupants of the White House. And today McCain comes out with this rancid, race-baiting ad based on another lie.... There's clearly no level of sleaze this guy won't stoop to to win this election.

And let's be frank. He might win it.... But what is already apparent is that John McCain is running the sleaziest, most dishonest and race-baiting campaign of our lifetimes. So let's stopped being shocked and awed by every new example of it. It is undignified. What can we do? We've got a dangerously reckless contender for the presidency and a vice presidential candidate who distinguished herself by abuse of office even on the comparatively small political stage of Alaska. They've both embraced a level of dishonesty that disqualifies them for high office. Democrats owe it to the country to make clear who these people are. No apologies or excuses.

Andrew Sullivan:

On core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and had to pick between good and evil, he chose evil. [...]

McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president. The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain -- no one else -- has proved it.

Joe Klein:

Back in 2000, after John McCain lost his mostly honorable campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, he went about apologizing to journalists--including me--for his most obvious mis-step: his support for keeping the confederate flag on the state house.

Now he is responsible for one of the sleaziest ads I've ever seen in presidential politics.... I just can't wait for the moment when John McCain -- contrite and suddenly honorable again in victory or defeat -- talks about how things got a little out of control in the passion of the moment. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig.

See The Washington Monthly.

So, the question is whether the lies and sleaze will eventually backfire and reverberate against McCain or whether lies and sleaze have become the only effective way to win a campaign in our modern times. If the latter, the Democrats are doomed to perpetual failure, because they (generally) don't do vicious well.

The fact that McCain (and Bush before him) lies, cheats and steals isn't the complete tale of an election cycle gone bad. Of course, the GOP is aided and abetted by the media, which permits the perversion of the process to persist. Adam McKay discusses this at The Huffington Post, We're Gonna Frickin' Lose this Thing:

Something is not right. We have a terrific candidate and a terrific VP candidate. We're coming off the worst eight years in our country's history. Six of those eight years the Congress, White House and even the Supreme Court were controlled by the Republicans and the last two years the R's have filibustered like tantrum throwing 4-year-olds, yet we're going to elect a Republican who voted with that leadership 90% of the time and a former sportscaster who wants to teach Adam and Eve as science? That's not odd as a difference of opinion, that's logically and mathematically queer.

* * * *

So what is this house advantage the Republicans have? It's the press. There is no more fourth estate. Wait, hold on...I'm not going down some esoteric path with theories on the deregulation of the media and corporate bias and CNN versus Fox...I mean it: there is no more functioning press in this country. And without a real press the corporate and religious Republicans can lie all they want and get away with it. And that's the 51% advantage.

Think this is some opinion being wryly posited to titillate other bloggers and inspire dialogue with Tucker Carlson or Gore Vidal? Fuck that. Four corporations own all the TV channels. All of them. If they don't get ratings they get canceled or fired. All news is about sex, blame and anger, and fear. Exposing lies about amounts of money taken from lobbyists and votes cast for the agenda of the last eight years does not rate. The end.

Who You Gonna Trust?

It's as much a reflection of the state of journalism -- and the media -- as it is on the quality of the show itself, that Jon Stewart of The Daily Show is tied with the "big names" of journalism as the most admired journalist.

I have to admit that while I rarely watch TV news anymore, I also rarely miss The Daily Show (and now that I have TiVo, I can watch it whenever, so I never have to miss it). My husband and I were recently discussing the fall of journalism as a force in our lives. We are old enough to remember the glory days of journalism and the importance of the nightly news. We agreed that it was the introduction of the entertainment aspect into the newsroom that has mostly contributed to the decline in the value of the news. And 24 hour cable news? Forget about it.

If you're going to make the news more about entertainment that news, then The Daily Show gets my vote hands down as the best way to combine news and entertainment. Stewart's take on the news of the day is informative and entertaining. Much of the network and cable news rendition of the news is repetitive and stunningly silly. And then there's the propaganda aspect to the reporting of the "news," which diminishes its integrity. The end result is it's all worthless when it's difficult to discern what's real and what's not. See, The Real Fake News.

The NYTimes notes the phenomenon in Is Jon Stewart the Most Trusted Man in America?:

When Americans were asked in a 2007 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press to name the journalist they most admired, Mr. Stewart, the fake news anchor, came in at No. 4, tied with the real news anchors Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw of NBC, Dan Rather of CBS and Anderson Cooper of CNN. And a study this year from the center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism concluded that “ ‘The Daily Show’ is clearly impacting American dialogue” and “getting people to think critically about the public square.”

While the show scrambled in its early years to book high-profile politicians, it has since become what Newsweek calls “the coolest pit stop on television,” with presidential candidates, former presidents, world leaders and administration officials signing on as guests. One of the program’s signature techniques — using video montages to show politicians contradicting themselves — has been widely imitated by “real” news shows, while Mr. Stewart’s interviews with serious authors like Thomas Ricks, George Packer, Seymour Hersh, Michael Beschloss and Reza Aslan have helped them and their books win a far wider audience than they otherwise might have had.

Most important, at a time when Fox, MSNBC and CNN routinely mix news and entertainment, larding their 24-hour schedules with bloviation fests and marathon coverage of sexual predators and dead celebrities, it’s been “The Daily Show” that has tenaciously tracked big, “super depressing” issues like the cherry-picking of prewar intelligence, the politicization of the Department of Justice and the efforts of the Bush White House to augment its executive power.

For that matter, the Comedy Central program — which is not above using silly sight gags and sophomoric sex jokes to get a laugh — has earned a devoted following that regards the broadcast as both the smartest, funniest show on television and a provocative and substantive source of news. “The Daily Show” resonates not only because it is wickedly funny but also because its keen sense of the absurd is perfectly attuned to an era in which cognitive dissonance has become a national epidemic. Indeed, Mr. Stewart’s frequent exclamation “Are you insane?!” seems a fitting refrain for a post-M*A*S*H, post-“Catch-22” reality, where the surreal and outrageous have become commonplace — an era kicked off by the wacko 2000 election standoff in Florida, rocked by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 and haunted by the fallout of a costly war waged on the premise of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist.

Not surprisingly, with the rise of alternative sources of news available, the Pew Study finds:

Since the early 1990s, the proportion of Americans saying they read a newspaper on a typical day has declined by about 40%; the proportion that regularly watches nightly network news has fallen by half.

Of course, as the Times pieces notes, the end result of the presentation of the news as entertainment by television is the dumbing down of America. See, One-in-three Americans struggle badly with current events. Think Progress sums up the findings:

A new Pew Survey on News Consumption released yesterday reveals that viewers of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are more knowledgeable about current events than those who watch Bill O’Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Larry King, and the “average consumers of NBC, ABC, Fox News, CNN, C-SPAN and daily newspapers.” Thirty percent of Daily Show and 34 percent of Colbert viewers correctly identified Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the majority party in the U.S. House of Representatives, compared to the national average of just 18 percent.

I realize that times are difficult in the journalism and media industry, but the solution chosen by the industry obviously isn't the way to go. A few years ago Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post wrote about the sad state of the news, noting that its problems don't stem so much from the internet or Comedy Central, but from journalists no longer doing what they were supposed to do -- call bullshit. Sounds Like Gobbledygook to Me.

Echoing his sentiments, I said then: The news media is clearly in flux. Surely there needs to be adjustments to accommodate new media outlets, such as the internet. However, as Froomkin says so well, the real problem is that the press has lost it's way. It has forgotten it's mission -- the Fourth Estate's role in society is to be the "keeper of the watch" for its citizens.

Inquire No More

I've written before about the slow march toward the demise of the Philadelphia Inquirer, but it looks like the paper may be picking up steam to reach its destination.

The news for the hometown paper looks dire from a financial perspective, as reported by Philly Magazine, which recently reported that the owners of the Inky had entered into a forebearance agreement with their creditors.

Now, via Phawker, I saw the latest "news" on the Inky's new policy decision to hold posting news and articles on its on-line website until its paper version is printed and delivered. As Buzzmachine notes, A stake through the heart of the has-been Inquirer:

What the hell are they thinking in Philadelphia? Inquirer ME Mike Leary just sent a memo saying they are going to hold all but breaking news for the paper and even restrict bloggers from using their blogs to work on stories in progress.

Let me make this very clear to Inquirer ownership and management:

You are killing the paper. You might as well just burn the place down. You’re setting a match to it. This is insane. Even the slowest, most curmudgeonly, most backward in your dying, suffering industry would not be this stupid anymore. They know that the internet is the present and the future and the paper is the past. Protecting the past is no strategy for the future. It is suicide. It is murder. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

And my message to staff, the few of them left:

Get the hell out now! Get away from these fools or you’ll get it on you. Let’s hold a new Norg meeting right now and organize a competitor to the ailing Inquirer. It won’t take much to kill it now. Let’s put it out of its misery.

And my question to readers:

Do you care?

Answer to last question: Yes and No.

Based upon the current paper and website -- no.

I hardly read the print version anymore (although we still get it delivered because my husband likes to read an actual newspaper). Except for one or two articles on the front page, the entire front section of the paper consists of reprints of AP, NYTimes and Washington Post articles. I can read those at the original source, so why bother reading them on a delayed basis in the paper? Even the opinion section mostly carries reprints of op ed pieces from elsewhere, along with the likes of Rick Santorum -- just the sort of outlandish conservative that a liberal town like Philly wants, so I skip over that too. The only thing worth reading is the Local section, to see what is happening in the region. Sometimes, I let the paper pile up over a few days and then just skim through to see what, if anything, is worth reading. This from a person who used to read 5 papers daily (including the Inky), from cover to cover! Overall, with cutbacks in staff and content, the old Philly paper ain't what she used to be.

Even worse, I have to say that I've pretty much given up on the website, Philly.com. It's hard to find anything resembling news between the ads and the fluff stuff. Honestly, I didn't even know that they carried breaking news -- where could they fit it amid the stupid pet tricks?

My distaste for the paper and website doesn't hold true, however, for its bloggers, such as Will Bunch and Dick Polman. I read them daily and hope that this new policy won't impact their efforts, especially that of Bunch, who often provides previews of what is percolating in the newsroom. Unfortunately, that sounds exactly what has become off limits under the new decree. I wouldn't be surprised if the edict weren't directed at him. Which also makes me wonder what he's doing on his "vacation." Hopefully, if he goes elsewhere, it won't be too far from home.

I understand the concept of the Inquirer's new policy with respect to "feature stories," but this seems to go well beyond that. As Steve Outing said, Don’t go backward, newspapers!:

OK, I understand the thinking: The print product is suffering and this is a way to give it an edge — to encourage people to think that there’s some good stuff that you’ll get first by sticking with print.

But this is an argument that has been decided (or so I thought), so it’s disheartening to see a major newspaper go backward.

See also, At the end of the war, Newspapers commit ritual suicide.

I guess this is what happens when you put a PR man in charge. For him, everything revolves around the product he is selling, so the actual journalism is merely the window-dressing for the ad content, not the other way around. But who wants to pay to read ads, other than Brian Tierney?

Too bad you can't wrap fish in a website.

Reporting While Black

We all know that DWB (Driving While Black) is per se evidence of a crime in the United States, but RWB (Reporting While Black) is a new one by me.

Via the field negro, comes the story of a reporter for the Tallahassee Democrat, who was removed from a McCain event on Friday, with no apparent reason provided -- other than the reporter was obviously black.

As the paper reported, McCain security ousts reporter:

Price was among at least three other reporters, and the only black reporter, surrounding McCain's campaign bus — Gov. Charlie Crist and his fiancee, Carole Rome, were already aboard — when a member of the Arizona senator's security detail asked the reporter to identify himself. Price had shown his media credentials to enter the area.

Price showed his employee identification as well as his credentials for the Friday event.

"I explained I was with the state press, but the Secret Service man said that didn't matter and that I would have to go," Price said.

When another reporter asked why Price was being removed, she too was led out of the area. Other state reporters remained.

A McCain spokesman said that race had nothing to do with it. The Jed Report questions that, The no-talk express, observing:

The problem, of course, is that Price -- the only black reporter in that area -- was also the only reporter singled out for this treatment, even though there were many other state-based reporters in the area. (When another reporter complained about Price's treatment, that reporter was also booted.)

The reporter, Stephen Price, was interviewed by Keith Olbermann on Countdown:




I really think this is just another example of Obama playing the race card.

How, you ask?

The same way that race had nothing to do with Price's being asked to leave. These things are just hard to explain. You just have to believe. And trust McCain.

(Video via The Jed Report)

The Glory Days

"The glory days of TV news are over, and the media landscape has been dramatically changed."

So says Katie Couric, in a piece on Haaretz.com, There's only one Katie Couric - and now she's in Israel.

You think it might have anything to do with this?

During a CBS interview on Tuesday, John McCain made a stone cold error on a subject about which he claims expert knowledge: the 'surge' strategy in Iraq. In an interview with anchor Katie Couric, the Arizona Republican said, inaccurately, that the surge strategy was responsible for the much-touted 'Anbar Awakening,' in which Sunni sheiks turned against Al Qaeda, helping in turn to reduce violence in the country.

* * * *

Yet McCain's error was not seen by any CBS Evening News viewers. As MSNBC's Keith Olbermann noted (video below), "CBS curiously, to say the least, left it on the edit room floor. It aired Katie Couric's question, but in response, it aired part of McCain's answer to the other question instead." (Ironically, this edit came on the same day that McCain's campaign released a video mocking the media's "love affair" with Obama.)

McCain Gets History Of The Surge Wrong, CBS Doesn't Air Footage.

As Matthew Yglesias of The Atlantic notes, McCain's Mixed-Up Timeline (Foreign Policy):

Sometimes things have to end up on the cutting room floor in television, but it seems to me that if you show video of a question being asked, you ought to cut to the interviewee answering that question not just show some other film. Certainly when you've got a candidate who's made the idea that he's super-knowledgeable about national security policy misstating the basic facts of the issue that seems noteworthy.

And when you ignore those basic rules, you lose your credibility, which causes the end of the glory days for the media.

The Trustworthy Maverick

"You know, this election is about trust, and trusting people's word" McCain told a crowd of donors to his campaign. "And unfortunately, apparently, on several items, Sen. Obama's word cannot be trusted."

At a fundraiser in Kentucky, McCain said that voters should be wary of a presidential candidate who's word cannot be trusted, McCain: On Some Issues 'Obama’s Word Cannot Be Trusted'.
I couldn't agree more.

Via Crooks and Liars, is a list of the highlights of McCain's strongly held positions on the issues, as examples of the trusted maverick that he is:

• McCain was against the repeal of Roe v. Wade before he was for it.
• McCain was against torture before he was for it. Really for it.
• McCain was against crazy right-wing preachers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson before he was for them.
• McCain was against Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy before he was for them.
• McCain was against shady Bush “Pioneer” Texas billionaire swift-boat financiers before he was for them.
• McCain was for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law before he was against it and began breaking it.
• McCain was against Grover Norquist, whom he called “corrupt, a shill for dictators“ before he was for him.
• McCain was against BJU because of its “hateful,” “racist and cruel” policies before he was for it.
• McCain was against ethanol before he was for ethanol and then he was against it again.
• McCain was against a Martin Luther King holiday before he was for it. …

See Steve Benen of The Carpetbagger Report for more, It’s a delicate dance, and John McCain is ‘liable to break a hip’.

Yet why are the flips of Obama highlighted, while the ever growing changes in position by McCain all but ignored? Could it be the media's infatuation with McCain? Clearly, as between Clinton and Obama, the press preferred Obama. But they can't give up their first love -- John McCain. Now that the general election is upon us, McCain still wins the hearts of the media. The McLaughlin Group explored this issue on a recent show (video available at Crooks and Liars). Posing the question is the media smitten with McCain, several recent quotes from the media was highlighted:

Kind of like a Martin Luther [Chris Matthews - Hardball]

A man of unshakable character, willing to stand up for his convictions [R.W. Apple, NY Times]

An affable man of zealous, unbending beliefs [Richard Cohen, The Washington Post]

The hero who still does things his own way [Richard Cohen, The Washington Post]

Rises above the pack-eloquent, as only a prisoner of war can be [David Nyhan, The Boston Globe]

The perfect candidate to deal with what challenges we face as a country. [Mika Brzezinski, MSNBC]

Blunt, unyielding, deploying his principles, what he does do is what he’s always done, play it as straight as possible. [Terry Moran, Nightline]

Wordly-wise and witty, determined to follow the facts to the exclusion of ideology. [Michael Hirsh, Newsweek]

Willing to defy his own party and forge compromise. [Michael Hirsh, Newsweek]

Pragmatic in the service of the national interest, rises to passion when he believes that America’s best values are at stake. [Michael Hirsh, Newsweek]

The maverick candidate still. [Terry Moran, Nightline]

John McCain -- trusted maverick. He could do his own campagin ad just with those quotes.

(Cartoon via John Darkow, Columbia Daily Tribune)

The Middle-Aged White Man

I'm not exactly sure, but I don't think that what Barack Obama intended when he was talked about starting a dialog for a discussion about race in this country, that it should be the opening to let out the inner racist.

However, now that the word "race" has been spoken by Obama, it appears that the media machine feels that it has been granted the OK to make the race all about race. For example, Obama was interviewed on a local Philly sports radio show, Obama damage controlled?, and was asked about his grandmother, whom he referred to in his speech. He responded that she didn't harbor any racial animosity, but was merely "a typical white person" of her generation. The remark was parsed (all 3 words) and played and replayed -- even being cited as evidence that Obama's the real racist. Obama's 'typical white' remark on WIP offended some. See also, DAN GROSS: Wake Up White People!.

Of course, the truth is that the only people who would truly be offended by the remark is the "typical white person" who believes that political correctness is a conspiracy to inhibit their inalienable right to be a bigot. The rest of us understood perfectly what he said -- and meant -- by the phrase and don't disagree with his point.

Speaking of "white people" and the presidential race, John Edwards was on the Jay Leno show the other evening and although there was speculation that he might announce an endorsement of either Obama or Clinton, he held off. See Edwards unlikely to endorse. Instead, he discussed with Leno whether his choice to run as a middle-aged white man was a good idea.

If we're going to talk about race in the race, I'd much rather we do it the Leno way.

(Video via The Huffington Post)

Media Mania

Reflecting on a NYTimes piece, News Coverage Changes, and So Does Tone of the Campaign, which observes the change in tone by the media after the recent mocking SNL skit that suggested that the press has given Obama more favorable coverage than Clinton, see And Then There Were More and The Last Great Debate, the New Republic's The Plank, Media weenies, queries:

Seriously? Can this possibly be true? I fear it is, and it makes me wonder why journalists are such pathetic dogs. Scold us, and we immediately go into a shame-faced crouch, start lashing ourselves like medieval monks, and become desperate to win back your approval. You are absolutely right: we were too soft on Bush in 2000; we got suckered into backing the Iraq war; we fixate on the horse-race aspects of elections instead of delivering you hours and hours and pages and pages of insightful policy analysis; every last one of us is a card-caring liberal; we care nothing for the truth and will repeat any old rumor that comes down the pipeline without regard to whether there's any reason to believe it's true; and, given our druthers, we would print nothing but naked pictures of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, preferably wrestling one another in a pit of chocolate pudding. For all this and much, much more, we are so very very sorry. Just please stop being mean to us. We'll do anything. Seriously. We only want to be loved.

* * * *

Forget snuggling up to Obama. If the media can't take some gentle late-night ribbing without going all to pieces, that is the real embarrassment.

I'm afraid the press has a severe case of "it's all about me" syndrome.

Anyway, if you want to look at the real love affair -- look at the media's treatment of McCain. The Obama love fest was just a Spring Fling. It'll be over in the fall (if he wins the nomination) when it comes down to Obama - McCain. Trust me.

(Via Crooks and Liars)

Hope Over Fear

For various reasons, I haven't been in the office much these past few weeks. As the resident political junkie, one of the LLWL* gang wanted to know my take on the Iowa caucuses.

Perhaps my view is somewhat tainted by sour grapes, since I know that I won't have a say in the selection of the Democratic nominee for President, living in the late primary state of Pennsylvania, but my overall reaction is -- it's just Iowa. A small state in the middle of the country, that is not particularly representative of the rest of the country. It should be but one voice among many, not the decisive word on the issue that the media makes it out to be.

As I've been watching the process on the sidelines, I'm again reminded of how influential the role of the media is in the process. The media creates such hype over the "importance" of Iowa that we get pulled in to the spin despite ourselves. For some reason, that was so much more obvious to me this time around.

It's also interesting that the media normally exalts objectivity in reporting -- to the extreme. If a politician says the moon is made of cabbage, the press won't just contradict that, even when the world knows it's made of cheese. Instead, it finds another politician or expert to say the moon is made of cheese and reports both, as though there are two sides to the story.

Yet in the electoral process, many in the media feel free to pick favorites among the candidates and spin their reportage based upon those views. Maybe it's because reporters are assigned to campaigns and get too close to the people they cover, so their personal feelings about the candidates seep through. Whatever the reason, it happens all too often.

It is pretty obvious that the press hates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and loves John McCain. The others -- they wax and wain. You can see it when someone like Tim Russert says that even if Hillary wins Iowa, unless she trounches the rest, she loses. Yet McCain, even if he's far behind, he's still a force to be reckoned with. I also noticed that even though Edwards came in 2nd in Iowa, most post-caucus reporting never even mentioned his name in relation to New Hampshire. A story I recently read mentioned that Hillary brought coffee to the press corp traveling with her, but was met with stony faced silence. Who does this reflect on? They should be embarrassed. They don't have to like her to report on her fairly, but I don't think it happens. This not only influences their writing, it ends up helping to shape the opinion of the public, as they analyze the race.

As for the post-Iowa scene, I have to say that Barack Obama & John Edwards both gave inspiring speeches that, for a moment, remind us of what we can aspire to. Sure, we can be cynical and say they're just words, but on occasion words can and do inspire change. I think the fact that both did well is indicative of a desire for change among many in the electorate. Will Bunch of Attytood noted this as well, as well as the historic importance "it is to see an African-American marching toward the White House in a nation where those of us as "young" as 48-going-on-49 still have dim memories of segregation." If you missed Obama's speech, you can watch it there and John Edwards' speech is at Crooks and Liars.

Finally, the shifting fortunes of the various players is best summed up by Steve Benen at Crooks & Liars, Cutting through the spin:

Barack Obama — What Obama fans are saying: Iowa is the spark that will propel Obama to the Democratic nomination. What Obama critics are saying: Iowa’s just one state.

Who’s right? It certainly looks like the fans are, doesn’t it? There’s a lot of campaigning yet to be done, but an amazing eight-point victory — exceeding all expectations — with broad support from every constituency not only makes Obama the frontrunner, it will likely give him a big boost in New Hampshire and South Carolina. And if he wins all three, the race is over. On the flip side, Obama, not Clinton, will now quickly become the center of attacks from all sides. We’ll see if he can handle the heat, though my hunch is he can.

John Edwards — What Edwards fans are saying: We beat Clinton and are alive to fight another day. What Edwards critics are saying: He needed to win Iowa to stay competitive.

Who’s right? A little bit of both, actually. Edwards’ strong second-place showing certainly won’t force him from the race, but it’s going to be difficult to boost fundraising and poll numbers in light of Obama’s big win.

Hillary Clinton — What Clinton fans are saying: It’s only the first round of a multi-round fight. What Clinton critics are saying: Say goodbye to “inevitability.”

Who’s right? Again, both. Clinton isn’t going anywhere; she has the resources to keep the fight going over the long haul, and has solid support in Feb. 5 states. But now, she’s the underdog, and has no obvious avenues to retaking the lead.

Go there to read the rest.

~ ~ ~

* LLWL = Lady Lawyers Who Lunch (a/k/a, my officemates)

UPDATE (1/5/08): After I posted this essay, I read Shaun Mullen's piece, Iowa Post-Mortem: Caucuses & Carcasses, in which he expresses similar sentiments on Iowa and beyond, much better than I. His views on the top 3 Dems:

(1.) Obama: An historic triumph for an African-American whose message resonated with men and women, young and old, rich and middle class -- and perhaps most importantly, independents.

(2.) Edwards: His populist appeal wasn't nearly enough despite non-stop campaigning and he actually didn't do as well as in 2004. Unfortunately, the man with the $400 haircut probably won't last into the spring.

(3.) Clinton: Events are spinning out of control -- and may even be out of her control -- after a disastrous finish that shattered her aura of inevitability.

And then there's Jon Swift's don't miss view of the political landscape, Iowa Caucus Results Explained. I especially like his take on McCain:

The big winner was John McCain. McCain came in a very strong fourth with a whopping 13% of the vote, which makes him the man to beat in New Hampshire. In fact, he might have won the entire election last night. By giving up his quixotic crusades for immigrants, campaign finance reform and the Geneva Conventions, making up with the Christian Right and taking money from the people he once criticized for "swift-boating" John Kerry, McCain has proven that he is a serious candidate for President, maybe the only serious candidate.

Definitely Diamonds & Pearls

Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?

I want both.

I must confess that I haven't watched (endured) any of the Presidential debates to date. I have read about the issues (silly and otherwise) that were addressed and have watched a few video clips on some of the topics that were covered. The format for the debates certainly isn't likely to elicit much more than an occasional sound bite. The other part of it is, living in Pennsylvania, I know my primary vote won't count. So I hate to get too invested in it all, only to have my hopes dashed.

However, when I saw the headlines about "Diamonds or Pearls" after the last debate, I had to find out what happened. As noted in Behind Clinton’s Diamonds and Pearls:

At last night’s Democratic presidential debate, the candidates faced questions on Pakistan, trade policy, and merit pay for teachers. . . . [A]t the close of the debate, Senator Hillary Clinton was asked what sort of jewelry she liked?

“Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?” Maria Luisa Parra-Sandoval, one of several audience members who posed questions, asked her.

“I want both,” Mrs. Clinton replied to laughter.

After the laughter came the clamor -- charges of sexism, of favoritism and other assorted stupid nonsense. As the article noted:

Now Ms. Parra-Sandoval is being accused, by everyone from bloggers to fellow students, of asking an airheaded, sexist question. On her MySpace page and in a phone interview, she protested that she tried to ask several substantive questions but that CNN would only let her participate through a silly one.

See also, Diamonds And Pearls Are A Girl's Best Friend (But Maybe Not Her Question Of Choice). Of course, the words of waitress Anita Esterday from last week's brouhaha were soon forgotten -- the press needs to get a perspective on what really matters. See Iowa Waitress Speaks Out: I Didn't Get Tip From Clinton, Media Has Misplaced Priorities.

Can't we be at a lighthearted anymore? Is everything (except the important issues of the day) the subject of scrutiny ad nauseum, ad infinitum??

Having said all that, I have to add that Hillary's answer was right on. This was not waffling on her part. That was the only correct response.

Anyone who knows me, knows that my one true love (after my family, of course) is jewelry. It's what I'm known for. My legal career is just a sideline in comparison. Jewelry by Judi could be the name of my business in my next career. It probably would not be an exaggeration to say that I have more jewelry than some jewelry stores. I've included a few of my favorite diamonds and pearls (including my Tahitian black pearls, of course) in the photo above, to give a sampling.
Although Prince is not my favorite musician, I thought it only appropriate to include his "Diamonds and Pearls"

Find more videos like this on www.truveo.com.

Tags: Humor, News and Media, Politics, Clinton, Music Video