Steve Benen found a good one. Looks like the wingnuts are so eager to find "proof" for their theories about Obama, they don't even bother to check the source. Can't say I'm surprised!

Right-wing pundit Michael Ledeen published an item this week on Barack Obama's "college thesis," which Obama allegedly wrote as a student at Columbia 25 years ago. Leeden cited some website, which ran a piece in August.

The paper was called "Aristocracy Reborn," and in the first ten pages (which were all that reporter Joe Klein -- who wrote about it for Time -- was permitted to see), the young Obama wrote:

"... the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy."

That's quite an indictment, even for an Ivy League undergraduate.... Maybe instead of fuming about words that Rush Limbaugh never uttered, the paladins of the free press might ask the president about words that he did write.

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh picked up on Leeden's report, blasting Obama for the alleged paper.

The first sign of trouble was when Joe Klein noted that he's never seen or written about Obama's college thesis, and has "no idea where this report comes from."

The second sign of trouble was when one stopped to notice that Obama didn't write a senior thesis (though he did write a thesis-length paper on Soviet nuclear disarmament).

The third sign of trouble was when one clicked on the link that Leeden provided as support and found the word "satire."

Yes, Leeden and Limbaugh got all worked up, trashing the president for a paper he didn't write in college 25 years ago, relying on a satirical blog post. And for real entertainment value, notice what Leeden and Limbaugh did when they realized they'd fallen for a dumb joke -- they blamed Obama anyway.

Leeden conceded he was wrong and apologized, but added, "It worked because it's plausible." Limbaugh said the text he touted was fake, but it didn't matter because, "I know Obama thinks it." Yep, even when they're wrong, it's only because the president makes it easy for them to be confused.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (789)

PLAYS: (2042)

Chris Matthews was off this week with Norah O'Donnell filling in so there is one good thing I can say about this week's show. None of the guests were interrupted or talked over. That said, check out this ridiculous "Matthews Meter" question. And six of their panelists thought the venom was partly Obama's fault, including Howard Fineman.

Once again driftglass nails this one in his post Sunday Morning Comin' Down -- "The Tell-Tweety Heart" (warning, not safe for work):

Epilogue:

While six of the "journalists" who make up the "Matthew's Meter" say, yes, the anti-Obama hatred was unavoidable, six say Obama partly brought it on himself.

Fineman: He didn’t talk to Main Street. He needs to spend every minute of every day constantly reassure crazy people on the Right that he doesn’t want to abort Sarah Palin's baby and shoot grandma in the head or turn Murrica into a Franco-Islamic Communist Caliphate. This is perhaps unfair, but after all, he is Black.

Jokeline: I was at some town meetings this summer, most recently in Arkansas. And this is an awful lot about race. And not just because of Obama’s name or skin color. If you’re working class white, you’re seeing Latinos and Asians.

driftglass: And bears. Oh my.

But why is this coming up now during a health care debate?

Jokeline: Because they’re being egged on by demagogues in the Republican Party. By Boss Rush Limbaugh. And I call him The Boss, because there is not a single, Republican elected official who is willing to call him out on his lies.

Cooper: Because there are a lot of White people – particularly in the South – who have just lost their s#%t over a Black man being President.

Fineman: Let me repeat it in case I was not condescending enough the first time – this White House needs to constantly kiss wingnut ass every way they can think of. Maybe it’s unfair, but after all, he is Black. Also he was forced to behave like a filthy, filthy Liberal to save the economy from crashing and burning, and the doublewide trailer crowd who his policies probably saved from living in refrigerator boxes and begging for nickels on freeway overpasses will never forgive him for it.

There's lots more at driftie's place. Go on over there and check out the entire post. I don't want to give too much of it away to spoil the fun, but I thought it was priceless.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1061)

PLAYS: (1838)

The video, taken from an episode of The Chris Matthews Show a few weeks back, shows Joe Klein differentiating himself from those DFH bloggers because his readers fact-check him.

Um, sure.

Slight problem with this rose-colored self-glorification: the truth is so much more whiny. Take, for example, Joe Klein's interaction with blogger "aimai" at a beach barbeque:

Last week I went to a cookout on the beach here with some old friends (Sausages and seafood, but no cocktail weenies!) Every year they do a cookout, and then a birthday party, and for years I've known that one of their guests was Joe Klein. I never mixed it up with him because, after all, well...the opportunity never presented itself and while I'm pretty aggressive in print no one really goes up to someone and picks a quarrel with them, do they?

Or maybe they do. Yes, I guess they do. I was standing at the cookout minding my own business when Klein started pontificating for the rubes on how “surprising” and “shocking” it was that Grassley, of all people, should have come out and endorsed the “death panels” lie. I walked up and said “why are you surprised?” [..] to which he, in best pundit debater fashion (never allow yourself to admit you were just posing!), shot back “who says I'm surprised?” I said “well, you did. You just started your lecture saying “Its surprising.”” It's not surprising, the republicans have nothing left to lose and nothing left to gain at this point outside of pleasing the crazy base and attacking Obama and the dems.”

We were off and running. He then said that its true the fringe republicans were “crazy” but perhaps no crazier than the “crazy left” under Bush. I thought he meant the “truthers” so I said “name me one person in congress or the Senate who was as crazy on any topic as these Republican senators and Congressmen who sign on to the birther and deather stuff are now?” Evading this question he said “well, Glenn Greenwald is crazy—he's a civil liberties absolutist.” Now, me, I come from a long line of civil liberties absolutists so I said “I admire Glenn Greenwald's work immensely but it must be very embarrassing for you, of course, because he's been eating your lunch for years.” (!) I think this must be something of a sore point for him. He began shrieking “Glenn Greenwald is EVIL! EVILl!..do you know what he did? He “sicced” his blog readers on my EDITOR and she was going through a DIVORCE at the time.” Really? I said, politely, that was very wrong, if it happened.

“We kept it very quiet” he said, backing off the claim of any real harm and, as a twofer, managing to imply that only those "in the know" had been kept informed.

Okay, Joe may be an arrogant ass--but that's not a crime. I grew up in Los Angeles and around the fringes of the entertainment industry. Trust me, there is no other industry with more arrogant asses per capita. Okay, well maybe the professional pundit field. But Glenn Greenwald is EVIL? Really?

Glenn's "evilness" apparently stems around that pesky fact-checking thing that Klein prides himself on. Namely, Joe's hacktackular piece on the FISA bill that was...wait for it...completely and utterly factually wrong. And then, to make matters worse, Klein found himself in a hole and kept digging. And Joe has carried this deep humiliation stewing inside him for a very long time.

Late in August, it finally blew. On a listserv of some 300 journalists, Klein decided to let loose and trash Greenwald, though Greenwald isn't on that listserv. However, someone on that listserv thought it a mite bit unfair that Glenn's reputation took a hit and he was unable to respond, so he sent it to Glenn. Glenn saved the emails to a site he uses for supplemental information. That act then drove the incredibly thin-skinned Joe Klein to post the most whingeing, pathetically self-serving post that Time Magazine's Swampland has ever seen:

Twice in the past month, my private communications have been splashed about the internet. That such a thing would happen is unfortunate, and dishonorable, but sadly inevitable, I suppose. I ignored the first case, in which a rather pathetic woman acolyte of Greenwald's published a hyperbolic account of a conversation I had with her at a beach picnic on Cape Cod. Now, Greenwald himself has published private emails of mine that were part of a conversation taking place on a list-serve. In one of those emails, I say that Greenwald "cares not a whit for America's national security."

I'd like to quote here from a subsequent email on that thread, which Greenwald hasn't published, in which I explain why I have such strong feelings about Greenwald:

For the past several years, Greenwald has conducted a persistent, malicious campaign to distort who I am and where I stand. He is a mean-spirited, graceless bully. During that time, I have never seen him write a positive sentence about the US military, which has transformed itself dramatically for the better since Rumsfeld's departure (indeed, he ridiculed me when I reported that the situation in Anbar Province was turning around in 2007). I have never seen him acknowledge that the work of the clandestine service—performed disgracefully by the CIA during the early Bush years—is an absolute necessity in a world where terrorists have the capability to attack us at any time, in almost any place. Nor have I seen [him] acknowledge that such a threat exists, nor make a single positive suggestion about how to confront that threat in ways that might conform to his views. Therefore, I have seen no evidence that he cares one whit about the national security of the United States. It is not hyperbole, it is a fact.

I am not a religious reader of Greenwald--he does go on, and on--and it's possible that I missed extensive posts in which he praises the Armed Forces or makes positive suggestions about how to track possible communications between terrorists abroad and their confederates here. But I sort of doubt that. What I have seen from him, ad nauseum, are intemperate attacks in which he questions the character of--no, it's worse than that: he slimes--anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him.

Et tu, Joke Line? Falling behind the jingoistic mantra of "he doesn't support the troops?" to hide from the fact that you have no defense? He admits that he doesn't read Glenn--because of all those pesky facts and info that Glenn fills his articles with--and then says Glenn smears anyone who disagrees with him. Um, Joe? Self-awareness is not one of your strong suits, is it?

And by the way, since apparently this whole internets thing is still new to you, your email isn't private. You cheered that with your defense of warrantless wiretapping and FISA, you nimrod. And sending an email to 300 people on a listserv REALLY shouldn't give you an expectation of privacy. Pontificating at a beach party really shouldn't give you an expectation of privacy either. Let that be a lesson to you. Especially when you decide to argue with the granddaughter of I.F. Stone. Just sayin'...

Glenn and aimai respond to Joe's attacks. And if you really want a good laugh, enjoy Klein's fact-checking commenters eat his lunch. I'm guessing that Klein sat in a fetal position whimpering under his desk after that smackdown. My favorite:

Somebody call the WHAM BA LANCEEEEEEEEEE!

I mean seriously Joke, you published an email just the other day of a private citizen with their email address and all and YOU are calling Glenn dishonest?

Dude get a frikkin life or at least some tough skin. You come off sounding like a whiny lil beyatch every five minutes responding to what has been said to you or about you on the intertubes. If being criticized is too much for you why don't you pack it in and go do something else? Out of everything going on in the world today you choose trying to get in a public pissing match as your subject to write on here at Swampland. I assume you must not have any editors for your posts but if you do they should all be fired for allowing you to try to act like a 5 year old using their platform.

And it shows how sh*tty of a journalist that you are that you admit you don't read Glenn much but then go on to make a blanket statement about what he has said or not said about the CIA or any other national security forces. Ass hole is too nice of a term for the kind of person who pulls that kind of blatantly dishonest bullsh*t. It doesn't make you some kind of patriot to suck off the CIA every time you get. As a matter of fact it makes you quite the opposite Joke, you would think the Iraq War would have taught you that.

One more thing, its hasn't escaped anybody that you did not refute anything the "pathetic woman acolyte" said about your conversation. Pretty telling, no?

Ouch. That one left a mark.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (3455)

PLAYS: (22095)

It appears Chuck Todd didn't take too kindly to Jeremy Scahill's drubbing he received on Real Time the other night. From Glenn Greenwald:

According to Scahill (via email), Todd approached him after the Maher show and the following occurred:

Right as we walked off stage, he said to me "that was a cheap shot." I said "what are you talking about?" and he said "you know it." I then said that I monitor msm coverage very closely and asked him what was not true that I said on the show. He then replied: "that's not the point. You sullied my reputation on TV."

Media stars are so unaccustomed to being held accountable for the impact of their behavior -- especially when they're on television -- that they consider it a grievous assault on their entitlement when it happens.

Check out the entire post where Glenn's got much more on some similar events going on lately besides just his own dust up with Chuck Todd. Joe Klein got into it with Aimai of NoMoreMisterNiceBlog who happens to be I.F. Stone's granddaughter. Glenn and Marcy Wheeler had an ongoing feud with Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic. And now we've got Scahill and Todd's back and forth on Real Time.

Glenn summed all of this up much better than I could ever hope to:

Todd's condescending responses illustrate the same point as the above episodes with Klein and Ambinder: in the eyes of Beltway mavens, those who warned about and worked against the radicalism and lawbreaking of the Bush administration are the fringe, crazed, out-of-touch radicals. While Todd was fiddling around with pretty colored maps and fun polling games, Scahill was courageously investigating one of the most corrupt, dangerous and lethal private corporations in the world, yet it's Todd who understands and must solemnly explain the hardened realities of politics to Scahill, the confused and silly Leftist.

There's little question that when people look back at this period in American history, it will be difficult to comprehend what happened in the Bush era -- and especially how we blithely started a devastating war over complete fiction, while simultaneously instituting a criminal torture regime and breaking whatever laws we wanted. But far more remarkable still will be the fact that, other than a handful of low-level sacrificial lambs, those responsible -- both in politics and the establishment media -- not only suffered no consequences, but continued to wield exactly the same power, with exactly the same level of pompous self-regard, as they did before all of that happened. Looking back several decades or more from now, who will possibly be able to understand how that happened: the almost perfect inverse relationship between one's culpability and the price they paid for what they unleashed?

In fairness to Chuck Todd, he was not one of the ones out there cheerleading for the war and I really liked him when I'd see him on C-SPAN's Washington Journal about every morning when he was working for The Hotline. He's a numbers guy. He was one of the best in the business at reading and sorting through the numbers on how our elections were going to turn out. I don't think coming to MSNBC however, has been good for Chuck Todd.

And now he's on there with the rest of them repeating the narrative of how terrible for the Democrats it would be if any investigations are allowed to happen, and if anyone from the Bush administration is held accountable. It's all politics to Chuck.

Here are my thoughts on that. One of the reasons it would be turned into a game of politics is because Chuck Todd and the rest of the beltway media would report it as such, instead of a legal matter. What Chuck Todd is relaying is what the Republican Party would like to see happen if the Democrats or this Department of Justice goes after the law breaking. It would be the choice of those in the media to validate the Republicans' sniping, which would inevitably follow (and already has for that matter), or to dismiss them as playing partisan politics in order to cover up law breaking for political gain.

Of course since the media was part and parcel in allowing the atrocities of the last eight or nine years, that's never going to happen.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1036)

PLAYS: (1592)

Chris Matthews seems to think that bloggers don’t do any fact checking, and that we’re going to lose that if the newspaper industry goes out of business. While it’s true that beat reporters and those doing the footwork out there are sorely needed, to say that bloggers don’t fact check is just a cheap shot at the on line community that he and his ilk have such disdain for, probably because we’re the main ones fact checking the likes of him.

What Matthews fails to note here is why the industry is in such bad shape. The Economist lays out some of the problems in their article Who Killed the Newspaper.

Nobody should relish the demise of once-great titles. But the decline of newspapers will not be as harmful to society as some fear. Democracy, remember, has already survived the huge television-led decline in circulation since the 1950s. It has survived as readers have shunned papers and papers have shunned what was in stuffier times thought of as serious news. And it will surely survive the decline to come.

That is partly because a few titles that invest in the kind of investigative stories which often benefit society the most are in a good position to survive, as long as their owners do a competent job of adjusting to changing circumstances. Publications like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal should be able to put up the price of their journalism to compensate for advertising revenues lost to the internet—especially as they cater to a more global readership. As with many industries, it is those in the middle—neither highbrow, nor entertainingly populist—that are likeliest to fall by the wayside.

The usefulness of the press goes much wider than investigating abuses or even spreading general news; it lies in holding governments to account—trying them in the court of public opinion. The internet has expanded this court. Anyone looking for information has never been better equipped. People no longer have to trust a handful of national papers or, worse, their local city paper. News-aggregation sites such as Google News draw together sources from around the world. The website of Britain's Guardian now has nearly half as many readers in America as it does at home.

In addition, a new force of “citizen” journalists and bloggers is itching to hold politicians to account. The web has opened the closed world of professional editors and reporters to anyone with a keyboard and an internet connection. Several companies have been chastened by amateur postings—of flames erupting from Dell's laptops or of cable-TV repairmen asleep on the sofa. Each blogger is capable of bias and slander, but, taken as a group, bloggers offer the searcher after truth boundless material to chew over. Of course, the internet panders to closed minds; but so has much of the press.

Ironically we see Bob Woodward saying journalism lives on after playing stenographer for the Bush crowd to get some books sold rather than reporting on what he found out. And he holds up Tina Brown’s operation at The Daily Beast as a business model for making money on line and some hope for journalism's future.

Just how different would this conversation have been with a completely different panel? The viewers might have learned something had it been our own Dave Neiwert and Susie Madrak who’ve worked in the newspaper industry and turned to blogging instead, and Josh Marshall from Talking Points Memo and Eric Boehlert from Media Matters, who’s sites look more like the future of journalism to me.

When the fourth estate doesn't do its job, people are going to turn to other sources that will. Something that seems to completely elude Chris Matthews and his panel here.

Another thing Matthews fails to note is that most bloggers who use other people’s reporting link back to that material and allow their readers to evaluate their assertions for themselves. We are not just taking stenography from press releases or other people’s reporting. And when we get something wrong, there’s generally a swift retraction. Something you cannot say for too many in our “mainstream media” who tend to circle the wagons rather than admit mistakes. And while Joe Klein is claiming that his commenters “fact check” him, just how many of those comments does he actually read?

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

Dusty Trice: Bringin' the wacko daily...Michele Bachman predicting Nazis. "Current administration more in line with the Weimar Republic." And this store-bought stooge can't even lie right!

Stinque: Pennsylvania GOP leadership turns to robbing funeral home burial accounts

No More Mister Nice Blog: No, wait...I know this one. The answer to " who does Joe Klein think is the Crazy Left?" Glenn Greenwald for fifty points

Prometheus 6: They're running out of black conservatives

Where’s the Outrage?: Interview with McJoan of the Daily Kos

HOLY CRAP: Warriors for Christ...God Calling...Texas bible scholars...Ayatollah Kit Bond...The kindness of God...Repent...Diseases caused by sin...Liberal Jesus...Are you there, God?...Idaho says no...Lutherans to allow gay pastors...Holy-War Fever...

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (141)

PLAYS: (2423)

Joe Klein calls out John McCain for his rhetoric on Iran, and notes that the United States needs to be more careful so we're not allowed to be an excuse for the regime to get much more brutal with the protesters than it has already been. It was nice to see someone basically tell McCain and his ilk to STFU and quit making thing worse.

King: President Obama's holding a news conference tomorrow. What do you expect? Do you expect him to respond to critics and get tougher?

Klein: I certainly hope not. I think that his response has been appropriate so far and I think that some of his critics have been very unseemly at a very, very delicate moment when we don't want the Supreme Leader or Ahmadinejad to be able to blame the United States for these protests.

You see what they're trying to do with CNN and with the foreign journalists and to me it's significant that last Friday when the Supreme Leader spoke at Friday prayers....who did he blame? He didn't blame us. He blamed the British, you know the British BBC Persia service is a major factor in getting the information out in Iran.

But the reason why he couldn't blame us is because the people of Iran know that Barack Obama has held out his hand to them. And I think that the President's playing this very correctly because those protesters in the street may be against the regime, but they are also very skeptical about our role in their country for the last fifty years. We've had a pretty checkered past.

King: Senator McCain's going to be here tomorrow. He is one of those critics. What would you say to him Joe?

Klein: Be quiet. You don't need to do this. You know, what you're doing is a self indulgence at this point. You know, Senator McCain, if he's going to talk about this should also talk about the fact that the United States supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran Iraq war for eight years. Every one of those protesters out in the street, every last one of them believes that the United States did supply Saddam Hussein with the poison gas that debilitated tens of thousands of Iranian men.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1229)

PLAYS: (7452)

TIME"s Joe Klein went after Rush Limbaugh and didn't hold back any punches. The topic was Wanda Sykes and her routine at the WH Correspondents Dinner. She hit Rushbo. and conservatives are so upset.

KLEIN: This is just comedy. And we're talking about a guy in Rush Limbaugh who is inappropriate half the time I hear him on the radio.

CARPENTER: Yes, but he doesn't go to the White House Correspondents' Dinner to... (CROSSTALK)

KLEIN: But he describes himself as an entertainer. Wanda Sykes, entertainer. This is entertainment.

CARPENTER: But would you hold up Rush Limbaugh at these dinners to tell those jokes?
KLEIN: So could Rush. He could be in a lot better taste on a daily basis in which he is delivering misinformation, lies to a large audience in America. That is far more serious than telling a couple of jokes at a banquet.

KURTZ: Well, "lies" is a strong word, but we'll come back to that another time.

Klein was surprisingly candid in his assessment of Limbaugh and what he says on the air. Kurtz got stunned when Joe called Rush an outright liar. He also defends Sykes right to do what she will as a comedian.

(transcript below the fold via CNN)

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1749)

PLAYS: (2585)

The use of "meter questions" on The Chris Matthews Show has always seemed like a waste of time, because the questions are generally framed in such a way as to divide the responses down partisan lines. And the responses to today's meter question "With Arlen Specter joining the Dems, will health care pass?" did have a curious partisan divide...though not the one you might expect.

Overall, Matthews' panel of pundits narrowly agreed 7 to 5 that Universal Healthcare would be done this year, something with which Matthews agrees. The lone dissenter on the panel this week was putative "liberal" Joe Klein, who, like the scorned girlfriend, has been down this road before with other presidents and just cannot believe that it's possible to get Universal Healthcare passed.

And as much as it kills me to agree with Kathleen Parker--and it really, really does--she's right that Universal Healthcare is a foregone conclusion. It's politically untenable for the Republicans to put up too much of a fight (sell-out Democrats notwithstanding)and the Obama administration has done a good job of tying healthcare to our collective economic recovery.

However, it's interesting to note that all of the pundits completely ignored the framing of the question, which was to weigh heavier Specter's defection to the Democratic Party to the success of passing health care reform. Obviously, despite all the bloviating in the punditocracy over Specter changing sides of the aisle, ultimately, he's not seen as Obama's ace in the pocket. Given his statements this morning, they're probably right.

DOWNLOAD (43)

PLAY (83)

The insulated Beltway Bubble strikes again...it's all about the media, dontcha know? Without benefit of even having yet taken the oath of office (and near daily press briefings notwithstanding), Chris Matthews asks his panel of pundits whether Barack Obama will be worse than Richard Nixon and George Bush in keeping the press at arm's length.

Can he be any more biased by evoking the two (Republican, mind you, let's not lose sight of comparing apples to oranges) administration fighting for the title of Worst. Presidency. Ever.? How about comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter, a Democratic president who was hobbled by constant belittling by media types and the conservative infrastructure being laid in the media? Matthews points to the message discipline that Obama's campaign exercised as proof-positive that Obama has no love or trust for the media. How dare he not have leakers in his inner circle? But honestly, can you blame Obama for his distance from the media? What has the media done to earn trust? Cherry-pick snippets of Rev. Wright's sermons to try to demonize Obama as an America-hater? And Matthews seems more concerned with whether the press gets access to leaks within the administration than whether Obama fulfills his promise to the American people of transparency.

Hate to break this to you, Tweety, but the days where the media acts as the Fourth Estate and represents the American people died many years ago. That's why most Americans no longer trust YOU, not Obama. Because even with most Americans believing that we must pull out of Iraq, the media still frames it as an open question and continues to validate neo-con philosophy even though the country has shown by its votes that they favor the Democratic stances and stays conspicuously quiet on issues such as accountability and morality. Obama's responsibility is to the American people, not the D.C. cocktail class who are already inventing issues for a man yet to even assume the office. You've abdicated your responsibility long ago.

Joe Klein is very, very shrill and I have to say I agree with him.
Embarracuda

I'm of two minds about how to deal with the McCain campaign's further descent into ugliness. Their strategy is simple: you throw crap against a wall and then giggle as the media try to analyze the putresence in a way that conveys a sense of balance: "Well, it is bull-pucky, but the splatter pattern is interesting..." which, of course, only serves to get your perverse message out. I really don't want to be a part of that. But...every so often, we journalists have a duty to remind readers just how dingy the McCain campaign, and its right-wing acolytes in the media (I'm looking at you, Sean Hannity) have become--especially in their efforts to divert public attention from the economic crisis we're facing. And so inept at it: other campaigns have decided that their only shot is going negative, but usually they don't announce it, as several McCain aides have in recent days--there's no way we can win on the economy, so we're going to go sludge-diving.

But since we are dealing with manure here, I'll put the rest of this post below the fold...read on

Joe Klein unloads on the McCain campaign for getting testy with the press for having the audacity to do their job.

Swampland:

The second thing is more insidious: Steve Schmidt has decided, for tactical reasons, to slime the press. He wants the public to believe that there is an unfair--sexist (you gotta love it)--personal assault going on against Palin and her family. This is a smokescreen, intended to divert attention from the very real and responsible vetting that is taking place in the media--about the substance of Palin's record as mayor and governor.

There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme.

The Politico's Roger Simon joins him: 

On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.

We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.

We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

We have asked mean questions like: How well did John McCain know her before he selected her? How well did his campaign vet her? And was she his first choice?

Bad questions. Bad media. Bad.

It is not our job to ask questions. Or it shouldn't be. To hear from the pols at the Republican National Convention this week, our job is to endorse and support the decisions of the pols.

     Joe Klein is calling the McCain campaign's assault on the media "insidious", "bullying" and "not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme."

The story of the day out here in Minneapolis is the McCain campaign's war against the press ... So what's going on here? Two things. McCain is just plain angry at us. By the evidence presented in the utterly revealing Time interview, he's ballistic. This is a politician who needs to see himself as the man on the white horse, boldly traversing a muddy field...any intimations that he's gotten muddied in the process, or has decided to throw mud, are intolerable. The second thing is more insidious: Steve Schmidt has decided, for tactical reasons, to slime the press. He wants the public to believe that there is an unfair--sexist (you gotta love it)--personal assault going on against Palin and her family. This is a smokescreen, intended to divert attention from the fact the very real and responsible vetting that is taking place in the media--about the substance of Palin's record as mayor and governor. ...There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme.

Continue reading »

In case you hadn't heard, a Florida woman was killed in a freak accident Wednesday when a stingray jumped out of the water and into the boat she was riding, striking her in the face. Always the class act, TIME's Joe Klein said the following yesterday when talking about the suspension of a McCain's staffer for circulating a vile video about Barack Obama:

Download | play Download | play

Transcript via HuffPo:

KLEIN: ...back in 1988, Dukakis staffers distributed a Biden tape, the tape where Biden was plagiarizing a British politician and they got fired. This is pretty much campaign business as usual. It's really stupid because as long as Rush Limbaugh lives and breathes on this planet, McCain doesn't have to do any dirty work. People like Limbaugh will do it for him. But I think maybe the operative metaphor here isn't drowning but the giant sting ray landing in Obama's boat.

CROSSTALK: Ooh. Oh, Joe.

KLEIN: Okay. Well...

CROSSTALK: Don't blame that one on me. Don't blame that one on me. I'm not going to go there, because someone did die from that.

Yea. He went there.

The backlash against "Obama-mania" has really begun in earnest in the last week or so. Last night on CNN's The Situation Room, Carol Costello treated viewers to a Fox News-like presentation of more recent examples.

Download | play Download | play

COSTELLO: Many political observers say they've never seen anything like it. Thousands wait in line to see him, and it seems with every speech, they always latch onto Obama's three favorite words.

OBAMA: Yes, we can.

COSTELLO: Obama supporters wildly respond, chanting enthusiastically along with their candidate. But it's a scene some increasingly find not inspirational but "creepy."

L.A. Times columnist Joel Stein is cited, calling it "Obamaphilia. Then two of the very serious people sect have their opinions presented, Conservative columnist David Brooks in the NY Times, through his alter-ego Dr. Retail:

Meanwhile, Obama’s people are so taken with their messiah that soon they’ll be selling flowers at airports and arranging mass weddings. There’s a “Yes We Can” video floating around YouTube in which a bunch of celebrities like Scarlett Johansson and the guy from the Black Eyed Peas are singing the words to an Obama speech in escalating states of righteousness and ecstasy. If that video doesn’t creep out normal working-class voters, then nothing will.

Or Joe Klein in Time magazine, in a piece called Inspiration vs Substance. None too subtle is Joe. Klein also introduced the descriptor "creepy" to Obama-mania.

"There was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism ... [T]he message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.

And although not mentioned in the CNN piece, the truly creepy conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer gets into the act yesterday with this Washington Post column The Audacity of Selling Hope.

Interestingly, Obama has been able to win these electoral victories and dazzle crowds in one new jurisdiction after another, even as his mesmeric power has begun to arouse skepticism and misgivings among the mainstream media.

ABC's Jake Tapper notes the "Helter-Skelter cultish qualities" of "Obama worshipers," what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls "the Cult of Obama." Obama's Super Tuesday victory speech was a classic of the genre. Its effect was electric, eliciting a rhythmic fervor in the audience -- to such rhetorical nonsense as "We are the ones we've been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek."

Krauthammer compares it to what he experienced as a young man growing up in Montreal, in what became known as Trudeaumania. The more obvious example to many Americans who remember the spring of 1968 is with Robert Kennedy. It would seem the traditional media's reaction to inspirational political figures has not improved in the intervening 40 years. If anything it's only gotten worse.

Or as Will Bunch succinctly put it:

But the real takeaway here is that passion + politics = cult.

God -- the real one -- save our political discourse.