by Damozel | Whatever these ladies' differences---and we all know Michelle Obama was never a Hillary fan---Michelle knows Hillary understands the problem of sheltering one's young from the "media maelstrom." (Politico)
by Adam | Yesterday, I read a devastating takedown of the mainstream media's coverage of the DNC by Eric Boehlert of Media Matters. I highly, highly recommend that piece in it's entirety; it's a meticulous deconstruction of the media's artificial focus on the non-story of Hillary Clinton's embrace of Barack Obama. As he says at one point,
I suspect if a truth serum poll could have been conducted in Denver to find out how many professional pol watchers within the press corps actually thought that Bill or Hillary Clinton would refuse to "embrace" Obama at the convention, the answer would have been zero. But how many within the press pretended for days that that was a possibility? Almost all of them.
by Deb Cupples| I'm increasingly troubled by many media outlets' failure to thoroughly and accurately report on issues.
One would expect a reputable journalistic outfit like the Associated Press to get the facts right and report them in a way that gives readers an accurate view (or at least doesn't fuel mis-perceptions) -- especially since "nuance" has become the word of the year.
A recent AP article further erodes that expectation for me. Below are the first two paragraphs of that article:
Posted by Damozel | Biden? Really? I didn't know whether to yawn or sigh.
I had given up consciously expecting Hillary to be chosen, but like Nader and John Amato, I must have thought he should have picked Clinton. I think Obama will pay a price for not doing so. Fortunately, Bill Kristol sheds huge crocodile tears over poor Hill and "the glass ceiling," which makes me think Obama might have been right after all. Shut up, Bill Kristol. Nobody cares what you think.
John Amato of Crooks and Liars thinks Obama should pick Hillary. I must say, after all the drummed-up "suspense," she's practically the only one that would still interest me.
David Brooks thinks it should be Joe Biden. Sure, he's said many un-self-aware idiotic things that the Republicans could play on an endless loop, but he's seasoned, he's got working class cred, and he's Catholic.
Posted by Damozel | And Fact Check's response is: It's real, all right.
FactCheck.org staffers have now seen,
touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We
conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State
Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks
a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution
photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article.
Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
by Damozel | I only mention Nader and Clinton for grins; I've kind of given up hope of the "dream ticket." (And if it were to happen, I'd be fed up with both Clinton and Obama for the cliff-hanger act). Nader says Clinton would be "the smart pick." (Politico) When the world and I were young, before 2000, we listened to Ralph Nader. But that was then; this is now. Anyway it's too late.
Posted by Damozel | During the symbolic first roll call at the convention, Hillary may garner a fairly large number of delegate votes. (The Politico) So what. Much carry-on over nothing. Hillary herself says that she plans to vote for Obama. (The Politico) Let people who want to vote for her get it out of their systems. I never heard so much jibber-jabber over nothing.
“It’s a bizarre strategy,” said one Democratic strategist of the roll
call. “It could backfire and show that her influence is waning. Chances
are, she’s not going to have as many delegates vote for her on the
floor as she had in the primary.” (Politico)
by Deb Cupples| I don't know whether some journalists lack analytical skills, embrace laziness, or just plain intend to mislead their readers. At yesterday's New York Times blog (The Caucus), Katherine Q. Seelye wrote the following:
by Damozel | First, this disclosure: I was a Hillary supporter, and now I support Obama. In my opinion, that's what all Democrats should do. For me, a McCain presidency ain't an option. I'm even going to donate money to Obama's campaign as soon as that debt of HRC's is retired.. I know for a fact he's going to need money.
But the name 'Democratic National Committee' is a hissing and a byword here in Florida and I am not even close to being over their shenanigans during the primaries. So even though I agree in principle with the 'party officials' who wrote this letter, I would submit that Donald Fowler ('DNC member-at-large...who was one of Hillary's most prominent supporters') and 'Alice Germond, the Secretary of the DNC) struck just exactly the wrong note (see TPM). Lambert at Corrente has a different shorter version of their email.
by Damozel | Among many bloggers who remain critical of Obama and the Obama campaign, one of those I find most powerful and persuasive is Anglachel, who writes both eloquently and intelligently about the divide in the Hillary campaign.
Here are a couple of quotes from Anglachel's posts, though it's only fair to say that they aren't reducible down to extracts; they are intricately thought through and unified --- the blogging equivalent of origami --- and pulling out a piece here and there isn't really illustrative.
by Damozel |More punditry over Obama's perceived tack toward the center. As I've said before, I never get tired of saying 'I told you so' to people whose support for Obama was all for non-policy-based reasons. He was charismatic, he energized the young, he made a thrill run up Chris Matthews' leg, he's the first black candidate ever with a shot at the presidency....All those things were true; what isn't true is that he ever committed (barring one or two hot issues, such as FISA and NAFTA) to a truly progressive agenda except when following the lead of one of the other candidates as a matter of strategy.
by Damozel | The Guardian has an excellent two-part piece by Melissa McEwen
and Maureen McCluskey, in which they track the ways in which Clinton's
opponents recycled all the old anti-Hillary slurs formerly flung at her
by the right. Led by certain members of the Church of Lord Kos,
supporters of Obama dug up out of the back garden the whole slop jar of
gratuitous and frequently sexist insults.
In a complete 180-degree turn, the same members of the left who had
once defended Clinton against the attacks of the right wing - the
trumped-up scandals and dug-up dirt that led to endless hours and
millions upon millions of dollars wasted in fruitless investigations of
the Clintons, their business dealings, their friends, not to mention
the peculiar features of Bill's twig and berries - adopted the frames
of those attacks as their own. Everything old was new again. Call it
political retro chic..... By April, the blogfather Kos himself was agreeing that Clinton wasn't even to be considered a Democrat anymore. (The Guardian, part 1)
Posted by Damozel | Don't get me wrong. In my opinion --- and as a Clinton supporter, I followed the exchanges extremely closely while they were happening--- Bill Clinton has every right to be angry about the way Hillary was treated by the Obama campaign. I don't think his anger is productive, mind you; and I think he is undermining Hillary's chances. But if Hillary values her political career, she needs to give Bill a time out.
To accuse someone of being a racist -- a vile thing for a person to be --- is, by definition, to accuse them of vileness. It is a grave insult. It seems to be these allegations that are fueling Bill Clinton's outrage and wounded feelings. Most of us would feel just the same.
By Damozel | At The Moderate Voice, Joe Gandelman speculates that the wounds might be too profound to heal. I personally doubt it. A month in political time is equal to a year in real time. And as the subsequent post shows, many Democrats were moved by the event and the speeches. I can't see the sour feeling of some of the insiders having much of an effect on the average voter.
Marc Ambinder likewise wonders whether unhappy Clinton donors can be brought into the circle and made to join in the unity boogie. See above.
By Damozel | Hillary pulled out all the stops for Obama at their first 'Unity' rally. Obama said, 'She rocks.' Well, for once in quite awhile, he's actually right. Anyway, I'm glad they're going to pull together. I'm not so sure they'll be able to pull the divided party together, but here's hoping they can:
by D. Cupples| During separate conversations with three friends last week, I witnessed live in the flesh what I've seen in the media for months: unquestioning faith in Barack Obama that remains intact despite evidence that should have a shattering effect -- or at least cause a few hairline fractures.
I have not witnessed such bullet-proof faith since those few years after 9/11, during which millions of Americans (led by Limbaugh and Fox) believed that President Bush could do no wrong: a time when True Believers would point and bellow and maybe key the car of anyone who mentioned facts that might test their faith in Their President.
While lunching at a restaurant last week, a friend asked me this:
by Damozel | My colleague Deb Cupples and I worried from the get-go that Obama wasn't particularly progressive and we were, let us say, uneasy with what we considered to be his often misleading rhetoric along the primary trail and the advisers with whom he surrounded himself. As she discusses here, he certainly doesn't seem too bothered about the wishes of the progressive wing of the Democratic party.