History Lesson

For all of this talk about conflict between Hillary and Obama, Eric Boehlert offers a refreshing history lesson. Consider this:

The Democratic convention in Atlanta witnessed even more tumult from the second-place finisher when Jesse Jackson, furious at being passed over for the vice-presidential slot by the party's nominee, Michael Dukakis (who failed to call Jackson and tell him the VP news), threatened to withhold his delegates' support from the party's nominee. In fact, just hours before the convention began, Jackson's supporters threatened to place the candidate's name into nomination for the vice presidency, which would have created a massive floor fight between Jackson and Dukakis' pick, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas.

Pre-convention tension grew so heated that the mild-mannered Dukakis was quoted as saying, "I don't care what Jesse Jackson does. I'm going to this convention and I'm going to win." During his convention keynote address, which lasted nearly an hour -- much longer than expected, Jackson did not specifically endorse Dukakis.

Mediocre men needing to believe they are great

I touched on this the other day- but Josh Marshall does a really nice job of expanding on the point:

One of the great threats we face is the personal sense of grandiosity of the lead foreign hands who shape the course of our role in the world. Not national grandiosity, but personal grandiosity. Because if you're a foreign policy hand or political leader your own quest for greatness is constrained by whether or not you live in times of grand historical events.

There's a lot of this nonsense floating around today by pampered commentators who want to find a new world historical conflict to write bracing commentary about before we're done with the one from last week. But John McCain might be president in six months. And whether it's his own shaky judgment, temperament or just the desire to find a campaign issue, this loose cannon is a real threat to this country.

As I have been watching this all unfold, I have gotten increasingly worried that the press will fall into the McCain as leader meme that he is just itching to play. They so much want to believe that they are all living in a grand historical moment, and all they need to complete this is a grand historical figure that can lead us through it.

Bob Casey Sr. was apparently the American pope

This is just layers upon layers of ridiculousness:

Sixteen years ago, the Democratic Party refused to allow Robert P. Casey Sr., then the governor of Pennsylvania, to speak at its national convention because his anti-abortion views, stemming from his Roman Catholic faith, clashed with the party’s platform and powerful constituencies. Many Catholics, once a reliable Democratic voting bloc, never forgot what they considered a slight.

I mean really, I would challenge the Times to present 50 Catholics who won't vote for Obama because Bob Casey Sr. didn't speak at the Democratic convention in 1992.

Feeling Despondent

I think it is time to talk me off of the ledge, as I think I am about to lose it. I have spent some time watching and reading about the latest press coverage of the 2008 election and I am losing all hope that this race will be covered with the type of care and thought that we deserve. This past couple of weeks, we have been treated to stories that defy reason. The talking heads debated whether Obama just hates the troops or REALLY hates the troops, whether he is arrogant, whether he is playing the race card and whether he is an elitist.

In general, I try to avoid all of this and am really fortunate that I live without a television. But, it is unavoidable to completely sequester myself from all of this crap. Whenever, I do see this stuff, I feel incredibly disconnected from all of it. As I view this election, I see a candidate (McCain) who cannot feasibly win and this is without considering the 'image stuff' (i.e. that he is old and awkward). He shouldn't be anywhere close to Obama when you look at the policies he is advocating and how poorly thought out they are and/or unrealistic to carry out. For instance, his expressed belief that he will balance the budget by winning the war in Iraq, his unrealistic belief that we can secure Afghanistan AND Iraq at the same time with troops that appear out of thin air, his advocating a gas tax, as well as offshore oil drilling, that will do nothing for the American consumer and his absolute refusal to consider the economic hardships that most Americans face. Furthermore, he is running with the legacy of the most incompetent presidency of all time and with a party that has shown itself to be inequipped to run the country.

Of course, I think that the Obama campaign must share a modicum of the blame here- but on the whole, I believe that it is the sheer incompetency of the 'new' press (by this I mean the press, as it has come to operate since the inception of Fox News) which shoulders the lion's share of the blame. They behave like children with undiagnosed ADHD and will focus on whatever shiny thing is laid out in front of them, they offer judgment on the issues by not offering judgment and they will debate, endlessly, any talking point which is shoved in their face.

That is all, time to get off of the ledge.

Always bad news for Obama

I read this Kos diary and thought "Wow. A seven point lead in the latest CNN poll is great news for Obama. He has a substantial lead over McCain".

Then I went to the CNN story and it seems like Obama is losing because his lead is only 7 points.

Will someone please help me understand how the press thinks?

Paging Maureen Dowd

I wonder if she and the rest of the commentariat will breathlessly write about how McCain is an out of touch pretty boy since he wears $520 shoes (to put that number in context, that is more than what my wife and I spend in a month on groceries). I think we all remember how the traditional press behaved when they found out that John Edwards got a $400 haircut and even then it made sense. In a time where politics is largely driven by image- you need to look good for the cameras. McCain's shoes, however, are not often going to be seen when he gives an interview- which seems incredibly indulgent.

Yet, as we have seen time and time again- the narrative for McCain has already been created. He is a man of the people. It doesn't matter if he owns nine homes, travels in a private jet or has credit card debt which is more than triple the value of my home. He knows what it is like for the common man. Obama, on the other hand, shops at Whole Foods- which is a clear indicator that he is out of touch.

Nailed it--

Re: my post from earlier

This is exactly why McCain made the ad:

It looks as if the new McCain ad falsely attacking Obama over his canceled troop visit may not really have a lot of money behind it, suggesting that its real purpose isn't getting it before voters directly.

Rather, the real target audience may be the media -- meaning that the McCain camp's goal is largely to get the ad debated in the press and to drive the conversation that way.

Nice Headline- jackasses

This is the current headline from MSNBC:

Bush and McCain seem to diverge
in foreign policy

At first glance, what this seems to suggest is that McCain does not agree with Bush's more aggressive foreign policy. HOWEVER, if you actually read the story- the article suggests that the recent moves by Bush, in regards to Iran and North Korea, make McCain more hawkish than President Bush.

I know this is a trifling thing, but if you are following the campaign- one of the strategies that the Obama campaign has used has been to compare President Bush to McCain. You would think that the editors at MSNBC would be sensitive to the fact that such a headline would be read as favorable to McCain. Perhaps a more accurate headline would be "McCain's foreign policy more hawkish than President Bush's", but really- what do I know.

Capturing THE voting block in 2008

While I think Cynthia's who skipped their high school reunion and live with three miles of a Pottery Barn are going to be an important voting bloc this fall, the most important voting bloc really is going to be twice divorced white Lutheran woman who are dating men who went to bartending school after failing out of tractor-trailer driving school.

I mean seriously folks, if you want to make those kind of distinctions- you are going to need some more data than a 1,000 person random sample with selected cross-tabs. They should really throw every political reporter into at least two graduate level stat's class- this is just embarassing.

Keeping his bitches in line

Apparently, to John McCain, if members of the media are not openly cupping his James Westfall and Doctor Kenneth Noisewater (google these names if you don't understand the joke), they are showing overt bias towards the other guy. It's kind of funny that when the press gives some favorable press to Obama that McCain turns on his 'base'.

Still asleep at the wheel

Most of the elite press has maintained a love affair with The Daily Show. They like to tout their love as a sign that they are 'happening' and 'with it', and come to the conclusion that what people would like is their news to be irreverent like the Daily Show.

I think fans of the show, however, like the show because it actually treats its audience like adults. Case in point- yesterday's show covered the discrepancy between President Bush's press conference and Ben Bernacke's testimony to Congress. Furthermore, Jon Stewart pointed out that the White House seemingly timed their press conference in order to blunt the news coming from the Capitol (see the first two minutes).



Now, I am what you would call a voracious news consumer. Yet, in my search through the news yesterday, I didn't find any mention of this audacious attempt at White House spin. I think it might have been nice of them to cover this.

Even losing means that McCain is winning

Try as I might, I will never understand the way the media thinks. As Atrios and Matt Yglesias note, the fact that Obama has consistently led in the polls is some indication that he is not actually winning.

Son of a...

Politico informs us that the AP is changing its writing style:

Fournier is a main engine in a high-stakes experiment at the 162-year old wire to move from its signature neutral and detached tone to an aggressive, plain-spoken style of writing that Fournier often describes as “cutting through the clutter.”

I think the idea behind this is decent, but for the AP to take this on is really troubling. The AP exists as the one entity in the current media environment which offers 'straight' news (or as close to straight news as possible). If news organizations want to use their stories, it is up to the editorial staff to add commentary or opinion. By opening themselves to editorializing, the AP is making a potentially horrible mistake.

Michael Scherer writes things

Shorter intrepid Time Reporter- Michael Scherer:

If Obama said that his plan for Iraq was to give everyone a gumdrop pony we wouldn't have to scrutinize his plan, but since he has addressed this topic with serious thought, he must be pulling a fast one on us.

OBAMA FLIP-FLOPS ON IRAQ!!!

How does the media get, 'I will change my position on Iraq' from the phrase 'will continue to refine my policies'? Really, how the hell do they get there? The word that they are focusing on is 'refine'. What do you do when you refine? You can refine oil or coal. Now, does that mean that you change the actual substance into another? No. When you refine, you get closer to the substance's 'pure' state.

Quite simply, what Obama was saying was that he was working on a more perfectly articulated plan of getting out of Iraq. I am not shoehorning here. That is what he literally said. Yet, the media went crazy saying that he flip-flopped, and when Obama came back to say 'you are all idiots' (he actually didn't say that), they say that he had to clear up some inarticulate phrasing.

I mean really, this is what they have to do to show that he is a flip-flopper? Really? Meanwhile, McCain is changing his policies mid-sentence and he is still a straight-talkin' maverick.

I think as we get closer to the election, I am going to be drinking my own weight in whiskey.

End of June prediction

You might notice that I have added a link to the right-hand side for the blog 538. This is a really great place to go for polling info and for predictions and, as of now, the folks over there are predicting a big win for Obama in November.

I, however, am not so optimistic. I think this is going to be an incredibly close election with a very good chance that McCain pulls it out. Why? Because McCain enjoys a relationship with the press that no other major politician enjoys. They love him and will not cover him in a critical light. This is very reminiscent to the way that the press treated Bush, except they managed the press through fear and not through camaraderie.

We have already seen a few examples of how this is working itself out on the campaign trail. For example:

1. The post below- McCain's military record cannot be questioned
2. Similarities between Bush and McCain- Josh Marshall has a lovely rundown on how the media has made it clear that McCain is not like Bush
3. McCain's dust up with the FEC- He has broken campaign finance law but there is barely mention made of this.
   
4. McCain's wife- Terry Heinz had to report all of her income in 2004, but Cindy does not have to offer full disclosure.
   
5. C@#tgate- while this is a rumor, the press has happily spun thinner ones against Obama.

In an election where everything should point to a landslide, we would be foolish not to focus on the press coverage of either candidates. It is going to play huge in November.

They Need to be Stopped

It pains me to realize that we have over 10 months of this to look forward to:

So President Bush has delivered his last State of the Union. And what everyone in the House press gallery is talking about isn't the speech. Rather, it's the snub.

Sen. Barack Obama refused to make himself available to greet Sen. Hillary Clinton before the speech.

When members of the Senate entered the chamber, Obama came in before Clinton. He went out of his way to greet as many House members as possible and walked halfway across the chamber to greet members of the Supreme Court, the president's cabinet, the military joint chiefs.

That made what happened next even more striking. Obama returned to stand by his seat next to Sen. Edward Kennedy who endorsed Obama today in a widely watched event that reverberated across the political world.

As Clinton approached, Kennedy made sure to make eye contact and indicated he wanted to shake her hand. Clinton leaned towards Kennedy over a row of seats and Kennedy leaned in towards her. They shook hands.

Obama stood icily staring at Clinton during this, then turned his back and stepped a few feet away. Kennedy may've wanted to make peace with Clinton but Obama clearly wanted no part of that.

The sense in the press gallery was that Obama didn't cover himself in glory. Someone even used the word "childish." (Not this writer.) Judging by how much conversation there was about this brush off in the press gallery, Americans will be hearing a lot more about this tomorrow and in coming days.

I am not sure if this happened or not and I don't give a flying f#%k if it did. Do you want to know why? Because I am an adult and realize that in real life these things happen. I realize that in politics not everything can be gumdrop ponies and ice cream castles. Unfortunately, the press corps would rather act like a bunch of chattering school girls and gossip then actually give us something of substance.

Been a while

I haven't posted anything for quite some time, mostly for the reason that things have been really busy. Partially, however, I stopped writing out of absolute frustration. I have been enormously frustrated by the following:

• The media- case in point, in looking at the news this evening MSNBC and AP have reported that Bush is reducing the number of troops in Iraq. He isn't. He is just putting them at pre-surge levels. Also, he has just acknowledged that our troops will be there forever. Yet, the media parrots the line that Bush is removing troops.
  
• The White House- I shouldn't even have to explain this.
  
• Congress- I understand that things cannot be changed overnight. But really, have some sort of damn backbone. The American people want a change, if the Republicans stand in your way, let the American people know.
  

Fatigue

Back in May, I noted that there was very little mention about Bush Fatigue in the mainstream media, while back when Clinton was President, it seemed like every other story was about how the public was growing tired of him.

Atrios has a similar post today, and while I relied on my intuition, he has actually done some research. Here is what he found:

Number of times the term "Clinton fatigue" appeared, according to a Nexis search, in major papers during July of 1999: 27.

Clinton Gallup poll approval rating in July of 1999: 64

Number of times the term "Bush fatigue" has appeared, so far, in July of 2007: 1, courtesy of Byron York's hair.

Bush Gallup poll approval rating in July of 2007: 31.

This really just makes you want to put your head in a microwave oven. Clinton was TWICE as popular as Bush is, at the same point in his presidency, yet the thought that the public is sick of Bush barely enters the press discourse. The only time it did, it came from the right.

Perspective from CNN

This was not brilliant-



Too much more of this and I am moving in with Pork Rinds