I have come not to praise Caesar, but to bury him.

Greenwald in a particularly shrill, and true, post on the death of Cronkite vis-a-vis Russert, and their stances on opposite ends of the journalism-stenography spectrum.

Also, a clip from Cronkite that no one wants to talk about. I wonder why?

lobbyists

Greenwald combines several of my favorite things: decrying the very practice of lobbying, accusing the media of complicity, and trashing David Brooks. The Moyers Journal episode he references (the one with him and Jay Rosen) was very good, too.

Mr. Obama, please don't "swing for the fences"

I've been thinking a lot lately about the TV show Sports Night and how Sorkin makes sports relevant and meaningful by juxtaposing it with "real life" and showing just how similar the two often are and how sports can, in fact, offer some insight into human behavior and even the occasional "nugget of wisdom," and not just in the way of trite, saccharin life lessons and cliches about sportsmanship and the human spirit.

For instance, in one episode the show they work on is focused on an Olympic long jumper, Oscar Parrish, who's come close to breaking the world record several times, but each time before he got sidetracked somehow: his father's death, an injury during practice, etc. Finally, at 33, he makes it back to the competition at what is obviously his last chance, he's primed and ready, he jumps, and he's done it. A new world record.

And the 18 year old jumping after him lands a foot further.

The lesson for three characters, Dana, Jeremy, and Dan (in very different situations), is that you can try your hardest, and you can even accomplish the things you have control over, but you can't guarantee how long the fruits of your labor will last because of circumstances outside your control. The time you spend at the top of your personal mountain can be short indeed, so enjoy it while it lasts.

I wish Keith Olbermann would talk more about sports and less about politics, not just because I think he's a better sportscaster than political pundit, but because sports and politics share something in common that I find truly fascinating: often people in the media will use a sports analogy for politics, and in the process they typically use a misreading of sports to give a misreading of politics.

A couple of years ago, for example, there was the example of "doubling down." It was used to describe a tactical move where the president seemed to "double" the amount of effort he was investing in something (I think funding for the surge). The problem is that "doubling down" is what a poker blackjack player* does from a position of strength, whereas the president was actually working from position of desperation, giving the same idea a second go in the hope of winning. That is not "doubling down," but rather "going double or nothing" which describes a very different situation.

With this sports/politics mangling in mind, I read David Brooks' column about Ryne Sandberg's 2005 induction into the Hall of Fame this morning. From that column, a quote from Sandberg's speech:

“I was in awe every time I walked onto the field. That’s respect. I was taught you never, ever disrespect your opponents or your teammates or your organization or your manager and never, ever your uniform. You make a great play, act like you’ve done it before; get a big hit, look for the third base coach and get ready to run the bases.”

Sandberg motioned to those inducted before him, “These guys sitting up here did not pave the way for the rest of us so that players could swing for the fences every time up and forget how to move a runner over to third. It’s disrespectful to them, to you and to the game of baseball that we all played growing up.

Sandberg's point obviously is as more about respecting the game as it was meant to be played, but there's a lot of practical advice in that as well. From what I gather, swinging for the fences is generally a bad thing in baseball except under optimal circumstances. If you send your players out swinging for the fences, what you're most likely to end up with is 3 outs and a very short time at bat. Similarly, when a defense has a really bad inning and allows a ton of runs, it's usually not because they suffered a string of home runs, but rather a long string of base hits. Players who always swing for the fences do so out of misplaced priorities, out of preferencing their stats and sponsorships and spot in the recaps over the success of their team. Sure, they're more likely to get home runs, but they're also more likely to pop out or strike out and, thus, to contribute to their team losing. Politics, like baseball, is a game where incremental gains can quickly lead to an avalanche, and where gaudy, selfish plays are not only unlikely to succeed but can backfire spectacularly.

George W. Bush got a massive influx of political capital after 9/11, and decided to just swing for the fences (make the Middle East democratic). He failed, and it sidelined his domestic agenda for the rest of his first term and sidled him with the bane of 20th century presidents: an unpopular war. He won re-election and swung for the fences again with privatizing Social Security. He failed again, and it doomed his agenda for the remainder of his administration. His failures also contributed substantially to his party losing everything they had won over the last 20 years.

So President Obama, go for the smart play. Don't just go out there swinging for the fences. Get a few base hits, get a couple of fast runners on base. As you've said yourself over and over, this is not about you. It's about your team and your sport and everyone who's affected by it. You've got a lot of things to fix, both big and small, and the political capital you've built up has to last. There will be opportunities to swing for the fences, and some will be early, but smart playing also involves a lot of base hits, stolen bases, smart defense, and a bunt here and there.

*: See Rene's comment for explanation of the fix. The benefit of blogs is that there's always people out there checking your work who know more than you do about the subject.

ambush

I said a couple of days ago that I thought Barack's sudden and uncharacteristic "John McCain doesn't have the cajones to say these Ayers attacks to my face" line sounds like a trap. He pretty clearly wants McCain to bring up Ayers, and by appealing to John McCain's impulsiveness and machismo ("you callin' me yella'?") both personally and via surrogates, he's basically forced McCain to launch the attack at the debate or risk damaging his manly military reputation.

Well, looks like the baiting worked. John McCain has pledged to bring up Ayers at the debate.

Did I mention that John McCain was a POW?

Obama's motives for the trap here could be simple. Perhaps this is a contest of polling, whereby McCain's pollsters believe the attacks damage Obama while Obama's pollsters have come to believe (with the aid of recent polling) that the attacks actually backfire on McCain, raising his negatives while barely denting Obama's positives. McCain's losing position virtually guarantees that he'll have to go on the attack anyway, and the more he does it, the more likely he is to turn off independents and leaners who tend to be repelled by this stuff, as Mike Madden at Salon says. Also, others have noted that the candidate who goes hard negative in the debate usually loses it (Bentson being a notable exception). This seems like an imminently reasonable explanation, almost certainly the correct one. Such a strategy would be especially productive if Williams doesn't ask about it and McCain is perceived to have brought Ayers up unasked in the debate.

But on the other hand, you just have to marvel sometimes at Obama's luck, the serendipity of the news cycle. Amazing the stories that seem to fall out of the sky on the day of a major debate.

reaction from the "liberal media" on Rachel Maddow

Greenwald is dead on. The addition of Maddow to MSNBC's lineup makes her the 2nd liberal with her own show (3rd counting Bill Moyers). On all of cable TV. The bizarre reaction to her hiring, especially in light of current and recently-defunct shows headed by Brit Hume, Tucker Carlson, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Nancy Grace, Glenn Beck, and John Gibson, not to mention avowed Dittohead Brian Williams, puts all of the media's varied neuroses and weaknesses on full display, from their shell-shocked terror of right wing scolding to the reliance on narrative over evidence.

As Coach Leach would say: Rachel, swing your sword.

Hogwash. Hogwash! Hogwash.

McClatchy, formerly Knight-Ridder, has consistently been the best press outfit in its reporting on Iraq, standing head and shoulders above everyone else. They took a moment last week to bitchslap Brian Williams, Charles Gibson, and the rest of 'em. I think it's gonna leave a mark.

gullibility

Eleanor Clift wrote in Newsweek on Friday:

Hillary lost the media a long time ago through a combination of arrogance and entitlement, but she has won grudging respect in some unlikely quarters. Conservative commentators Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough are openly rooting for her, and Tony Blankley, who first gained notoriety as Newt Gingrich's spokesman, confessed somewhat sheepishly, "She's almost beginning to appeal to me."

Yes, absolutely, if hard-core Republicans who have publicly despised Hillary as a ball-busting, bra-burning "Feminazi" are openly rooting for Hillary to win, it must be because they have developed a respect for her and genuinely would like to see a Hillary Clinton White House.

Behold, the miracle of the ages! Hillary Clinton has converted Pat Buchanan!

This "honesty" factor is why I also love David Brooks so much, because in his columns he sheds all partisan feelings and ideology and takes a fresh, objective view of the world. Then, when he inevitably discovers that the doctrinaire conservative position is the correct one, I know he's telling the truth!

We see this kind of thing happen all the time, and yet no one on TV ever seems to catch this stuff in real time. They never consider that anyone in the media might have ulterior motives because, after all, media figures just comment on the news; they would never desire something so obscene as to affect the news! The notion that even the most partisan Republican, given a news show, would ever cover the news and give commentary with the objective of making it easier for the Republicans to win is absolutely preposterous to these people.

Why, what do you mean Bill Kristol isn't an honest broker?

No one ever asks during the media coverage if maybe there's a hidden agenda behind Bush's (or even, for crying out loud, Karl f**king Rove's!) "concern" that Democrats will hurt themselves by failing to back his proposals. Because if there's anything that keeps the Republican president up at night, it's his concern for the electoral viability of Democrats!

There's one historic incident of someone actually having a real affect on an election with this tactic that still rankles me when I think about it. From Joe Klein at Swampland:

...John McCain is probably the favorite candidate of Osama bin Laden, just as George W. Bush was Osama's presidential preference.

Why? Because both Bush and McCain have bought Osama's disinformation about Iraq being the central front in the war on terrorism. Of course, bin Laden wants the gullible neocons to take the Iraq bait because Afghanistan really is the central front of the war on terrorism--more precisely the Afghan-Pakistani border areas where the real Al Qaeda lives. The war in Iraq has been a grand strategic gift to Osama, keeping the U.S. military tied down elsewhere and off his tail.

Ron Suskind had a relevant scene in his excellent book The One Percent Doctrine: It's the Friday before election day in 2004 and Osama bin Laden has issued a videotape in which he lambastes President Bush. The top dawgs at the CIA are gathered to analyze the tape. Dep. Director John McLaughlin says, "I wonder who Osama is voting for?" Everyone cracks up because the answer is so obvious.

I remember this episode from the tail-end of the 2004 election pretty vividly, and I remember what everyone was saying after this video came out because the obtuseness of it infuriated me. You may recall the manner in which this video was popularized, specifically that it was trumpeted by every conservative and every Republican under the sun as indisputable proof that "Osama wants John Kerry to win," and I don't remember any of the Russerts or Matthews' (or, frankly, Kleins) discussing whether or not Osama was smart enough to bait that hook. Democrats on TV were laughed off the stage if they tried to make that point, and thus were left trying to close the deal for Kerry over the consensus argument that both Bush and bin Laden were unified in their opinion that Bush was "stronger on terrorism."

And 4 years later, when Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough (who became a GOP congressman during Gingrich's Contract with America) publicly root for Hillary Clinton to be president, Eleanor Clift writes it with utter credulity, never once doubting their motives.

Obama on rural insecurity and guns in 2004 on Charlie Rose

h/t Josh Marshall:

Can I just point out that the former first lady of the United States with a $109 million net worth just called a guy from a single parent household, with 1% of her net worth, an elitist?

Clinton's willingness to misrepresent Obama's point and muddle a potentially helpful discussion on Democrats, rural voters, and GGG issues (God, guns, and gays) is particularly irritating to me. It really bothers me that Clinton thinks rural voters are so foolish as to fall for this rubbish. It bothers me even more than all of Clinton's arguments against Obama are ones that, at the end of the day, will benefit McCain more than anyone in the general election.

Thanks a lot, Hillary.

Obama responds to Clinton and McCain:


The one thing that hasn't surprised me at all about this episode, however, is the beltway boys' shallow coverage of what Obama said. Washington pundits generally suffer from the delusion that they represent the workin' man, that their values are those of "small town America." Tim "Pumpkinhead" Russert never shuts up about his childhood in Buffalo. David Broder goes on his annual sojourn outside the Beltway to report on regular people's opinions, which always end up-- miraculously!-- conforming to his own. David Brooks sneers at bourgeois hipster "Bobos" and their blend of liberal idealism and Reagan-era selfishness without the slightest hint of irony, utterly blind to the plain truth that your average Whole Foods- and Ikea-shopping, artsy, wine-drinking secularist is a model Everyman compared to carpetbagging neoconservatives like Brooks. And Joe Scarborough wants a manly man president who can bowl and clear brush.

Want some wood?

Yet, when the news camera actually zeroes in on Pennsylvania and Ohio and West Virginia, we find that these Washington pundits' perception of the citizens of flyover country is that they (we? probably not) are prudish, highly judgmental, instantly shut off all critical thinking skills when they see a flag, and absolutely unable or unwilling to see that voting for the party of "God, guns, and gays" means voting against the party that wants to provide them more economic support.

I do have one question, though: it's awfully hard to argue that the press isn't actively trying to influence the race, to tar a candidate with a particular brush, when the 3 big stories of the last week are "Obama calls rural voters bitter," "Obama orders orange juice at diner in South Bend," and "Obama's a bad bowler." Do they just not care anymore if we know that they're in the tank for McCain?

the practice of professional punditry: an analogy

I guess I'm feeling a little choleric today.

Chris Matthews gets burned by Barack

Burninated!

the real issues

Mitt Romney's inability to fold a burrito properly clearly bodes ill for his chances in California.

it's not like anything important's on the line, right?

Wow. Michael Scherer at Time's fetid swamp blog actually did it: he perfectly described the Washington press' (including his own) perspective on presidential elections. Unwittingly, of course. The correct term, my friends, is sophomoric, in all of its definitions. You should read the whole thing, but it can be boiled down to this graph:

So here is the situation that Republicans in New Hampshire face on Tuesday: Do we elect the jock or the overachiever? Do we go with cool and confident, or cautious and competent?

The "jock," of course, is John McCain, and the "overachiever" Mitt Romney, and that is "the thing you need to know": which flawed high school stereotype they would fit into best. Not such droll minutiae as which candidates want to keep our soldiers in Iraq until the next century, or which one thinks we should spend countless billions of dollars deporting the millions of people who had the audacity to seek out the American Dream before sitting through all 4 CDs of the Living Languages English series, or which one thinks we should bet our Social Security checks on the stock market.

To Michael Scherer, TIME Magazine, and much of our press, policy is boring and political philosophy is irrelevant and you're probably too stupid to understand it anyway and Lord knows it would suck for them to have to sit you down and explain it to you! They'll make sure to use small words and simple, easy-to-understand metaphors that you can understand.

So remember: John McCain is cool, we all like him, he's the big strong quarterback that's a smooth talker and scores the hot chicks. Mitt Romney is a nerd. Like "Honors Calculus" nerd. Loves homework and academic decathlon and plays french horn in band. Now who do you want to vote for?

what you heard last night on NBC Nightly News

(c/o Glenn Greenwald)
Really, marriage is under attack? By whom? And will it hold Charleston?

I have to confess: I actually watched this segment last night and didn't even notice. That's how utterly infected with rightwing tropes our news media is.

And if that surprises you, here's a fun question: What does Brian Williams listen to in his car?

Answer: Rush Limbaugh. No, seriously.

Cokie Roberts proves anyone can do NPR

So I'm listening to NPR's Morning Edition on the way to work, and they bring presidential historian and MENSA inductee Cokie Roberts on to talk about whether the Hillary "played the gender card." Rene Montagne basically has to keep supplementing or redirecting Roberts' answers to keep her from sounding like a complete moron (you get the feeling that Cokie just watched CNN and MSNBC and picked up the narrative they developed in the 5 minutes after Tuesday's debate, pretending that conversation has merely been repeating itself in a Groundhog Day-like loop in the ENTIRE WEEK since then) until Montagne asks her (my paraphrase, looks like it's too early to find a transcript):

"So with Senator Clinton talking about how she can survive in an "all boys' club," yet also complaining about the 7 male 'pile on' in this debate, isn't she trying to have her cake and eat it, too?"

...to which Cokie, audibly confused by the question (or, apparently, by the metaphor) answers:

"Well, Rene, every candidate in this candidate has had to 'have their cake and eat it, too.' I mean, they all have characteristics that are sometimes helpful and at other times negative..."

I didn't hear the rest of the interview because I was laughing so hard. Then I remembered that Cokie Roberts is one of the nation's marquee political commentators, and I spent the next 15 minutes lying in the street.

bulls**t

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

your liberal media

From Huffington Post, re: NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams:

For Williams, it all went back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a citizen, he thought on that fateful day, thank God that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell were on the team.

Being a pundit means never having to say you're sorry

David Brooks: if conservatives had all been "centrist" like I say I am these last 5 years, and not advocating the stuff I was advocating, they'd still be in power.

Of course, David Brooks is a respected pundit, which apparently means he's given carte blanche to pretend like he didn't argue forcefully for us to go into Iraq, or concoct a speech for Bush arguing that we should "spread democracy" now, and we can change Middle Eastern society in 20 years, or defend warantless wiretapping, or dissemble on l'Affair Schiavo while calling the "moral high ground" for the Christian Right.

Daily Show on Petraeus Report

My God. It really is the best news source we have.

their usefulness is debatable

From ThinkProgress:

Following the conclusion of tonight’s presidential forum, host Chris Matthews immediately began to focus on the pressing issues. He offered an array of trifling analysis that included musings about Sen. John Edwards’ height, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s use of the word “girl,” and Clinton’s Chicago accent. Watch it:

I think this post is helping me see just why I haven't been all that interested in these media guys' take on any of the debates: they don't actually listen to them. For some reason, whenever Democrats (and perhaps Republicans, too) get up on stage and start talking about issues, Chris Matthews et al. don't listen to the substance of what he's saying. Rather, they're just listening for gaffes, for things that can be spun around to create drama, obviously because, according to their logic, candidates angering large sections of the populace or looking stupid attracts more "eyeballs" than candidates talking substance.

Thus when, as with most debates, there were no big gaffes, the press has nothing but the most banal observations, usually calling the debate a draw or calling it for the frontrunner with some vague "they seemed more poised" argument.

To Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzer and the CNN crowd, the debate apparently sounded like this:

John Edwards: "Blah blah blah, blah blah pretty hair blah blah, blah trial lawyer blah!"
Barack Obama: "Blah blah Hussein blah, 1st black president blah, blah blah I'm not experienced blah."
Hillary Clinton: "Blah blah Giordano's, blah blah blah Polish sausage, blah blah DA BEARS! blah."

one hell of a throwaway remark

From Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic:

Why doesn't John Edwards's hair equal Mitt Romney's face paint?

The primary difference is definitional: The centerpiece of Edwards's campaign is his anti-poverty efforts; he presents himself as a dedicated messenger for the cause, and he likes expensive haircuts, bought a gimungous house, etc. etc. His credibility as a messenger comes into question when he spends money ostentatiously. (The haircut was inadvertently billed to the campaign, a spokesman later said).

There is a difference in the political reality: fairly or unfairly, a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn't like John Edwards.

Fairly or unfairly, there's also a difference in narrative timing: when the first quarter ended, the press was trying to bury Edwards. It's not so much interested in burying Romney right now -- many reporters think he's the Republican frontrunner. [emphasis mine]

I'll leave his "primary difference," its twisted logic, its broken morality, and its ridiculous implications aside for now, because I want to focus on the other 2.

Look at his "difference in the political reality." That's an incredible admission from a journalist, eh? That the national political press corps is trying to bury Edwards because they just don't like him?!?! Wow. That answers sooooooooo many questions right there (like, for instance, the truth behind his "primary reason").

So much for that vaunted press "objectivity," eh? And do we really wonder whether that is "fairly or unfairly?" I think we all know which one applies here.

It's also good to know that being "the Republican frontrunner" means that the press will not be interested in "burying" you. That, too, explains a lot. Especially about the last 2 elections.

So much for that vaunted "liberal media."

So remember, kids, the reporter has admitted it openly: if you're the Republican frontrunner, no matter how blatant your hypocrisy, the Washington press corps will not be interested in pointing out your flaws. If, however, you advocate for the poor and don't at least pretend to be one yourself, the press will hate you and try to "bury" you.