In today’s Post, Dan Balz helps spread a canard about Hillary Clinton:
WHY DEMS TALK DOWN THEIR OWN HOPEFULS: Reporting from darkest Cedar Rapids,
Dan Balz was playing the perfect dumb-ass. He had spoken with 14
Democratic “party activists.” One of them—a high
school student!—had made a familiar remark:
BALZ (1/29/07): But even those who want to see a woman elected to the
White House worry that Clinton may not be able to win a general
election, given her political baggage. “I think that it would be amazing to have her be our president,” said Hollyanne Howe, a high school student. “I fear that if she is nominated, she won’t be electable. I
would love to see her get elected, but my biggest fear is that it won’t
happen and we’ll get stuck with another President Bush or whomever
else.”
First off, it’s odd that the Post includes a high school kid when
it assembles a small group of Dem “party activists.” (They
also included a married couple. That was lazy too.) But don’t
worry! It’s also easy to find adult Dems
expressing inchoate fears about the “electability” of their
parties’ candidates. Balz closes today’s dumb-ass report
today with a second such comment, this time by an adult:
BALZ: “I really like Edwards,” said Ann Bromley, a retired city worker. “I think he’s intelligent and compassionate. I don’t think he’s electable, and I don’t know why. Something is missing.” Others nodded in agreement.
“Others nodded in agreement”—good God! Is anyone dumber than our Dem Party activists? In fact, even as these party stalwarts spoke, Newsweek released another national poll.
This poll, conducted last Wednesday and Thursday, showed Clinton
leading McCain by six points (50-44) and Edwards leading McCain by four
(48-44). In fact, it was the third straight Newsweek poll, in a
span of two months, which showed Clinton ahead of McCain; she also
leads Giuliani by three in this latest survey (49-46). But so what! Nothing stops
us liberals and Dems from reciting the types of defeatist points which
reporters then rush into national papers. Hillary Clinton is
unelectable! Because of “her political baggage!”
(Sometimes, we’re such perfect tools that we say it’s
because she’s “too polarizing.”) In short, the RNC
doesn’t need to exist. We liberals and Dems are now quite pleased
to recite their talking-points for them.
But then, the press corps is currently deeply involved in failing to
mention those national polls. Consider one exchange that occurred this
weekend on the Chris Matthews Show.
At one point, Andrew Sullivan shared his childish thoughts about
Clinton’s “cooties”—and the entire,
dumb-as-dust panel enjoyed a good, solid group laugh:
SULLIVAN (1/28/07): I think she’s been a very sensible senator. I
think—find it hard to disagree with her on the war. But when I see her again, all me—all the cootie-vibes resurrect themselves. I’m sorry—PANEL: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
HOWARD FINEMAN: That’s a technical term!
SULLIVAN: I must represent a lot of people. I actually find her positions appealing in many ways. I just can’t stand her.
Bless their hearts! The panel shared a good solid laugh at
Sullivan’s talk about Clinton’s cooties. Let’s face
it. If these pundits got any dumber, we’d have to feed and dress
them each morning. The Matthews Show would have one producer just to help tie their shoes.
But then, omigod! It semi-happened! Howard Fineman almost mentioned the relevant facts! And he did cite that latest Newsweek survey:
FINEMAN (continuing directly): In fairness to her, after, after the roll-out she had this week, the numbers in our poll—the Newsweek poll and others—were very positive, very powerful actually. Cooties notwithstanding.
In fact, Clinton led McCain by seven in the Newsweek poll
back in early December, long before last week’s events. And
Fineman didn’t say the thing it kills pundits to say; Fineman
didn’t specifically say that Clinton was ahead of McCain and Giuliani in
several major polls. Viewers were left to puzzle about what sort of
polls had been so powerful. But at least he made a first small step
toward interjecting some relevant information. Not that it made a bit
of difference to one ardent dumb-ass:
SULLIVAN (continuing directly): If you look at her polling all these years, it is absolutely dead straight-line. People who don’t like her are not going to change their minds. And they’re about, over 40 percent.
But Clinton’s polling isn’t straight line—although, to be perfectly fair to Sullivan, he’s probably too clueless to know that.
Where do Dem voters, including Iowa “party activists,” get
the idea that Clinton can’t be elected? In part, from endless TV
propaganda, and from reports like Balz’s. People who watched the Matthews Show
heard a pundit aggressively say that Clinton’s polling has been
“dead straight-line;” no one in the panel managed to say that she’s has been ahead of McCain for months.
This is how a nation of voters gets the press corps’ preferred
ideas in their heads. This is how our “party activists” end
up reciting the RNC’s points.
Indeed, let’s return to that Balz report. At least twice, his
tiny gang of “party activists” told him that our current
nominees weren’t “electable.” There is no sign that
Balz then asked them why they thought such a thing, in light of the
current national polls—and he didn’t mention the national
polls as he typed up their comments. Result: Balz’s readers heard
again, from two “party activists” (one of them a high
school student!), that Clinton and Edwards can’t be elected.
Thanks to Balz, they didn’t hear that these unelectable losers are ahead in the national polls.
We offer the following thohughts, first about the Balz report, then about the liberal web:
RE Balz: When reporters speak to “the man on the
street,” they hear a wide array of comments. Endlessly, the
“main on the street” will say things which are false or
grossly misleading. And we’re sorry, but reporters shouldn’t print
remarks which are false or misleading without including the relevant
contrary information. In this case, the doubts which Balz managed to
hype three times are hard to reconcile with national polls. In his
focus group, Balz should have mentioned these polls to these
“activists.” But he certainly should have mentioned the polls in reporting the things these dumb-asses said.
RE the liberal web: Again, we see one of the major spins which
liberals and Dems should be challenging. And we’re going to see
it again and again until we force them to stop! Sorry, kids: In
performing our press critique, it isn’t enough to call Chris
Matthews “Tweety” a couple of times par semaine. And
it isn’t enough to say “Read it and weep” when we
present the Sunday line-up—without explaining what libs should be
weeping about. We have to educate readers about specifics—about specific spins which are harming our candidates. Hillary Clinton is unelectable
is one the RNC’s favorite spin-points. We ought to be teaching
readers how to respond when this spin-point gets pushed through the
land.
We’ll discuss other spins this week and next, including the utterly matchless spin-point: Hillary Clinton is soooo polarizing. But then, we’ve even seen major Dem Party strategists repeat that bromide on the air! Could we possibly get any dumber? Could our “leaders” be any more clueless?
Why do Dems talk down their own candidates? In part, because we are so inept on the web! Rest assured—the leadership won’t come from our “liberal journals,” or even from the Dem Party itself. It’s time to let our web readers know specifics about the way our hopefuls get harmed. And it’s time for us all
to scream, loud and long, when reporters and pundits, like Balz and
that panel, keep spreading this bull-roar around the country. Hillary Clinton/John Edwards is unelectable! We’re being harmed by that counterfactual spin-point. It’s time to fight back, long and loud.
THE FULL MONTY: Full disclosure: In that latest Newsweek poll, Clinton, Obama and Edwards are all ahead
of Saint John McCain. Clinton and Obama are ahead of Saint Rudy;
Edwards trails him by one point. In short, absent some sort of extended
argument, Clinton and Edwards are plainly “electable.”
Voters deserve to hear these facts when they’re exposed to spin
and opinion—even if the trumpeted spin, in the Washington Post,
comes from a high school kid.
VISIT OUR INCOMPARABLE ARCHIVES: Reporters can spread any
bullshit they want once they start quoting the “man in the
street.” Why not visit our incomparable archives?
In April 2000, Ceci Connolly went to a Gore rally—but weirdly, she could only find Gore critics to quote! Apparently, no one favorable to Gore had attended! Isn’t life grand when you can choose who to quote? See THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/4/00.
In July 1999, Bill Sammon wanted to print a false fact about
Gore—so he simply quoted a “man in the street” who
had made the bogus statement in question. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/30/99.
Yes—this is how these idiots work. We need to inform our liberal readers—and they need specifics.
AND GOOD RIDDANCE: One bit of news this week was just flat-out
positive. It concerned the Washington Post’s Sunday
“Outlook” section:
WASHINGTON POST (1/27/07): John Pomfret, a prize-winning reporter and
foreign correspondent…was named yesterday to become editor of The
Washington Post’s Outlook Section….In his new role, which starts the first week in April, Pomfret succeeds
Susan Glasser, who is assistant managing editor for national news.
Regarding Glasser’s departure from “Outlook,” we’ll say two things: Good-bye—and good riddance.
As editor, Glasser maintained the tradition of terminal dullness
inherited from her predecessor, Steven Luxenberg. But when she
isn’t returning her readers to dreamland on Sundays, she fills
her section with the sort of garbage she offered in yesterday’s
“Outlook.” This piece by Linda Hirshman is about as dumb
(and nasty) as “analysis” gets—and Glasser balanced
it off with this sad apologia by the hapless Dinesh D’Souza.
Meanwhile, last week’s lead story examined a burning question: Is
it possible that Jeb Bush will still seek the White House, perhaps as
early as 08? S. V. Date began with this clownish portrait of how great
things might have been:
DATE (1/21/07): Tuesday would have marked his sixth State of the Union address—and it might have been his best yet.
The nation is in great shape, President Jeb Bush would have reported:
record tax cuts propelling the economy to greater heights; a
revolutionary school-vouchers program for the first time granting
low-income parents real education choices; and, five years after the capture of Osama bin Laden, the final 20,000 U.S. troops returning home from Iraq.The president would break into his fluent Spanish and wave at
his Mexican-born wife, Columba, gazing at him from the balcony. The
cameras would settle on their eldest, George P. Bush, 30, and
commentators would speculate on whether the dashing lawyer would soon
run for Congress and carry on the Bush dynasty.Yet contrary to the best-laid plans of the Bush family, it won’t be John Ellis “Jeb” Bush addressing the nation this week…
Good God—what absolute nonsense! It could have been so great, we’re now told. We just picked out the wrong Bush!
Only at the mossback Post would an editor consider such perfect
nonsense to headline her pre-State of the Union Sunday section. And
only Glasser would follow up with yesterday’s astonishing piece
by Hirshman—a piece which strives to help us see how dumb women
are when they vote. Hirshman’s idea of supporting evidence? Men listen to more talk radio! What sort of editor would even dream of printing such consummate nonsense?
But we’re really glad to see Glasser go because of
her work during Campaign 2000. In July 1999, she co-authored
back-to-back, front-page putdowns of Gore—reports which were,
most simply put, blatant acts of journalistic malpractice. We’ll
try to revisit those articles later this week, to help you get a better
idea of the sorts of people who are behind the scenes, running your
mainstream press corps. But suffice to say: In any other American
profession, a person who offered work like that would come in for
professional sanction. (See: Nifong, Michael—Durham, N.C.) Yep!
In real professions, the Nifongs get charged. In “journalism,” the Glassers get promoted.
Glasser’s the kind of creepy crawler who lurks, unnamed, behind
the scenes in our major mainstream news orgs. Her departure from
“Outlook” is simple good news; her departure from
journalism would be that much better. Final note: Glasser is the wife
of Post reporter Peter Baker. (As we’ve long told you, this
cohort is deeply intermarried.) It’s too perfect! They fell in
love while covering Lewinsky, this sad capsule profile once said.
STICKS, STONES AND THE WASHINGTON POST: The Post deserves praise
for the way it continues to challenge a pair of campaign slimings
(their term). Yesterday, ombudsman Deborah Howell offered this rebuke to a recent, front-page Post report which falsely implied wrong-doing by John Edwards. Right next to it, the Post offered this lead editorial, rebuking some of those who have tried to slime Barack Obama in recent weeks. Here’s how the editors started:
WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL (1/28/07): IT’S BECOME a fad among some conservatives to refer to the junior senator from Illinois by his full name: Barack Hussein Obama. This would be merely juvenile if it weren’t so contemptible.
Republican lobbyist Ed Rogers, on “Hardball,” was one of the early
adopters of this sleazy tactic. “Count me down as somebody who
underestimates Barack Hussein Obama,” he said. Radio host Rush
Limbaugh, demonstrating his usual maturity, got a chuckle out of the
senator’s allegedly oversized ears, calling him “Barack Hussein
Odumbo.” And Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council issued this
e-mail alert: “Joining an already glutted field of hopefuls, Sen.
Barack Hussein Obama (D-Ill.) announced his candidacy for the 2008
Democratic nomination yesterday.”Insight magazine managed to further degrade the public discourse
with a scurrilous “report” alleging that Mr. Obama, as a child in
Indonesia, attended a radical Islamic madrassa. In fact, Mr. Obama
attended a public school in Jakarta that was predominantly
Muslim—no surprise given that Indonesia is a predominantly Muslim
country. Insight, whose piece was eagerly touted by Fox News Network,
might have learned this if it had bothered to check its story…
The headline: “Sticks, Stones and Mr. Obama/Misleading aspersions
about the senator’s background only make the perpetrators look
bad.”
We’re thrilled to see the editors doing their job. But we offer some basic reactions.
First: In its opening sentence, the Post attributes the
“contemptible” treatment of Obama to “some
conservatives.” It then names Ed Rogers, a GOP honcho, as
“one of the early adopters” of this “sleazy
tactic.” As usual, the corps is protecting its own. As Media Matters
has importantly shown, it was really Chris Matthews (good God—who
else?) who took the lead in putting Obama’s middle name on the
air (just click here).
But then, as we reminded you just last Friday, this mainstream press
corps always does this; they always obscure their own members’
misconduct. They always say it was “late night comedians”
or “Republican operatives” who have engaged in such slimy
tactics, even when it was their own mainstream cohort which drove the bullshit in question. The mainstream press corps is deeply involved in hiding the sins of its own.
Second: One quick note on the Post’s headline. According
to the Post, “[m]isleading aspersions about the senator’s
background only make the perpetrators look bad.” That’s a
pleasing, feel-good statement—but of course, it’s utterly
bogus. Over the past fifteen years, Democratic leaders have
been endlessly made to “look bad” when
“perpetrators” have cast such “misleading
aspersions.” It feels very good when the Post says different. But
the editors’ statement is cosmically wrong, as the editors of
course understand.
Mainly, though, this editorial made us picture the Ghost of False
Aspersions Past. As we noted last week, this is the type of editorial
which was never written
during the press corps’ astonishing war against Candidate Gore
during Campaign 2000. The editors refused to write such a piece during
Campaign 2000—which explains why George W. Bush is now president,
and why the U.S. is stuck in Iraq. Here’s the editorial the
editors failed to type at this stage eight years ago. We work closely from Sunday’s text, which arrived about eight years too late:
WHAT THE WASHINGTON POST SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN (4/99):
STICKS, STONES AND MR. GORE
Misleading aspersions about the vice president’s background only make the perpetrators look bad.IT’S BECOME a fad among some journalists to pretend that Vice President
Gore has been lying—or is even
“delusional”—about his personal family background.
This would be merely juvenile if it weren’t so contemptible. Sadly, our
own Michael Kelly has been one of the early adopters of this sleazy
tactic. Kelly wrote an op-ed column, “Farmer Al,” which
seemed to suggest that Gore was lying in statements he recently made in
Iowa—statements in which Gore accurately described the part of
his early years which was spent on his family’s farm.In fact, Mr. Gore spent about a third of each year on the family farm
as a youth—no surprise, given his parents’ modest Tennessee
backgrounds. Kelly, whose misleading column has been eagerly touted,
might have learned this if he’d bothered to check past the
Post’s past reporting about the vice president’s personal
history. Or Kelly might have checked his own past
work; in 1987, he wrote a detailed profile of Gore for the Baltimore
Sun. In it, he described all the youthful activities he now seems to
suggest that Gore has been lying about.When the attacks on Gore were debunked by Bob Zelnick’s new
biography—it describes Gore’s youthful life on the farm in
detail—Mr. Gore’s slimers didn’t even have the decency to
slink away. They continue to pretend that Gore has been lying about
that part of his early life, and they add silly, embellished complaints
about a fleeting remark Gore once made about the film Love Story. Those complaints against Gore have been debunked too, by Love Story author Eric Siegal and by Time’s Karen
Tumulty. But the attacks continue. Mr. Gore’s slimers seem to think
such name-calling can score points with the American people.Mr. Gore has never tried to distort his past or his family’s
history. Those who take pains to pretend that he has are trying, none
too subtly, to stir up scary images of Bill Clinton’s
misstatements concerning Monica Lewinsky. But these matters are
completely unrelated. The critics who make these claims about Gore
embarrass only themselves.
Sunday’s editorial was so obvious that it virtually typed itself.
That said, the editors still deserve our thanks for having written it.
But the same editorial should have been written when it was Gore whom
the press corps was sliming. The Post’s editors have done the
right thing—but they’ve done it eight years too late. They
should crawl on their hands and knees to beg forgiveness for their past
silence. And who knows? Maybe E. J. Dionne could even get involved in
fighting the conduct which has transformed our politics—and
changed our nation’s history. Maybe Dionne will even challenge
the slimers—and stand up for American values.
::Tullycast:: 