Barack Obama

The article certainly isn't horrible by Time magazine standards -- as far as I can tell, Karen didn't accuse Obama or his Democratic rivals of being pro-Terrorist.

That said, two observations about this kind of article:

1/ It's total fluff, completely substance-free. At the end of the day, there's nothing to it at all. It doesn't say anything at all about what Obama thinks about policies, what he would do as president, what the disagreements are between him and the other Democratic candidates. What does a reader learn from this? That Obama is having a "moment".

Shorter Karen: "Obama is up right now. His advisers are PUMPED!" And that's it.

2/ While it might be tempting to view this kind of article as "good," in that at least it doesn't consist entirely of GOP talking points about weak, effeminate, hypocritical Democrats, it really isn't "good." It might be relatively inoffensive as these things go, but it's extremely weak political journalism. Sure, a vapid puff piece on a Democratic candidate is a step up from the usual hatchet job on a Democratic candidate, but it's still extremely weak political journalism.

Why is Obama "up"? Has he "found his stride"? Does he now have the "taste in his mouth" to fight and win? Etc? Maybe, to some extent.

But the article fails to put the current situation in any true context. Starting with the Russert/Williams debate, the press trained its guns on Clinton and has been blasting away ever since. And the press has been promoting Obama non-stop. Why is the press behaving in this way? I've got some theories about this, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. Whatever the motives, this is clearly happening, and it would be quite strange indeed if sustained media hostility toward Clinton, and sustained press promotion of Obama, did not have an effect on the campaign.

But Karen airbrushes all of this out of her portrait of Obama and his "moment." Maybe it's too much to ask that Karen acknowledge that her puff piece is a *part* of the Obama promotion exercise (which it surely is), but it's just categorically misleading to her readers to pretend that this isn't happening.

The most glaring example of this is Karen's account of Clinton's having "turned in a couple of unsteady debate performances." This is misleading at best -- it's just misleading your readers to airbrush Russert and Williams' unprecedented staged attack on Clinton out of the picture.

And to illustrate the complete lack of substance in Karen's article: just a few days ago, in the pages of Time magazine, Karen was pointing to Obama's attacks on Clinton based on his willingness to face up to the Social Security "solvency crisis" as evidence of Obama's "candor". (She then pointed to her own 2005 piece *de-bunking* the claim that there is a Social Security solvency crisis, without really seeming to understand that her 2005 piece was evidence that she knew the premise of her Obama narrative to be untrue. But that's another story.) Karen defended her decision to ignore the substance of the debate between Clinton and Obama on Social Security on the ground that she didn't have space to consider it in the context of a one-page item in the magazine. Fine. So now we have an extended piece on Obama, part of which focuses on his new willingness to attack Clinton. And Obama is quoted as saying that voters learn about the candidates through the campaign back and forth.

Ok, so where's Karen's discussion of the Social Security attacks? There is no such discussion. Substance doesn't matter. Rather, "The question is whether Obama's newfound aggressiveness will undermine his image as the candidate of a new kind of politics." That's all there is in this kind of "reporting".

The more general point is that when the puff piece tentatively peeks out of the world of total fluff and briefly engages actual politics, the article portrays a counter-factual political world in which Obama is "having a moment" and Clinton had some "unsteady performances," but none of it is based on anything but the character and image emanating from the candidates themselves. It's a puff piece wrapped up in a fantasy world.

You can be satisfied with this kind of empty, uninformative journalism if your only standard is "it could have been worse, much worse." And I do recognize that this standard is not an unreasonable one in the current political environment.

But let's not pretend that this is competent journalism. It isn't. It's a total joke.

But yeah, could have been worse. Pat on the head for that, I suppose.

Eric--

I haven't read the article, and probably won't for the reasons you outline.

But I'm wondering where you see the distinctions, policy-wise, between Clinton and Obama.

There are three big issues:

1) Iraq
2) Health Care
3) The environment/global warming/energy policy

It seems to me that with either candidate the US will still have a substantial presence in Iraq in 2012, that the insurance companies will continue to keep the US as the most expensive and least effective health care provider in the OECD, and that there will only be symbolic efforts made in dealing with what really is a growing crisis in the environment.

There is, of course, a chicken and egg problem here--both campaigns are based on this kind of news coverage, developing a theme about the candidate as a person and a narrative about the campaign. To be a serious candidate you have to get this kind of coverage, although McCain demonstrates that while it is necessary, it is not sufficient. To get this kind of coverage you need to develop themes for this kind of article.

Barak will be our first african american VP with Hillary in 2008 and first african american president in 2016!

Hillary is the now.
Barak is the future.

I'm an Obama supporter and while I agree this is a process, horserace type of article devoid of much substance, I don't think this is a puff piece on Obama at all. Starting from the cover asking if politics has changed him, the entire subtext of this article mimes Howard Wolfson's "Abandoning the politics of Hope" narrative. Obama gets a chance to respond, but the key question this article seems to be asking is Obama a little hypocritical or a lot hypocritical? Howard Wolfson and Karen Tumulty seem to both belive that if your attempt to change politics is not 100% perfect than its pretty much meaningless....Black and white thinking that I usualy attribute to republicans.

The article also suggests that Obama got sharper with Clinton simply because he got heat from his fundraisers and wasn't doing well in the polls...there was no mention that Obama had been saying consistently through the summer of Hillary inevitability that he was pacing himself and planning not to peak too soon.

The article also reaches way back in the early history of this campaign to find some unfavorable stuff to mention for Obama - the answer on the terrorist question and the D-punjab memo with very little context. Obama got the terrrorism debate question first, Clinton got to listen to his answer before responding...and the media hailed the "I would retaliate" simplism in such a fawning way which failed to acknowldge the stateless aspect of terrorism that makes mere bush-style shoot from-the-hip retaliation against a particular nation state as the first instinct problematic. And with regard to the D-punjab memo ancient history, there is no mention that Obama reprimanded his staff over it.

And then Karen declares that he income tax cut for seniors is poll-driven pandering and give Obama no chance to respond. Just because something is popular with a group does not make it pandering if it is good policy. But Obama never was given the chance to argue the policy on the merits so Karen's declartion of pandering stands.

I think that it is interesting that Clinton supporters would see all this as unfairly favoring Obama. Apparently unless the coverage fawns over Hillary and dismisses her opponents, as it had for the entire campaign up until the Philly debate, it is biased against her. Yes hillary has gotten a lot of bad coverage in the last few weeks...but much of it is earned. Had Obama committed a fraction of the campaign mistakes hillary has in the last few weeks, the media would have stuck a fork in him and declared him done - again. But Hillary is still viewed as a very formidable contender, as she should be.

So in summary an ok process and harserace story, but with a bit too much Wolfsonesqe snark thrown in.

Obama until recently thought he could win a street brawl by fighting civilly. He was wrong. If you think your ideas count, you should fight for them.

And the press has been promoting Obama non-stop.

You have to remember that the Press's primary job is to generate interest and sell ad-space. By treating the primary like a horserace and noting that the second horse is gaining momentum, the job is done. Paragraphs devoted to the actually policy differences between the candidates on the other hand have the opposite effect. The reader in the dentist office is is likely to get halfway through, decide that the reading is too difficult and turn the page.

It's an unfortunate by-product of the weekly newsmagazine format but it also explains why, when actual policy questions are touched upon, it if crucial that they are stated correctly and not mangled to fit the writer's predetermined script.

Eric -

Their M.O. is to have Joke Line tell the main lies. The rest of them just provide "soft support".

wow. you do an article on a black candidate... and Time feels it has to (finally) address the issue of race in America.

But who do they get to address it? One of white america's favorite black people -- and wingnut welfare recipient par excellence -- Shelby Steele.

Why can't time hire someone whose views are consistent with the majority of American blacks to discuss race? Why does Time go to the hyper-conservative Hoover Institute and ask "gotta any of them black folks who agree with you?"

Why is it that when corporate media feels the need to finally talk about black people, if they aren't talking to Al Sharpton, they go looking for a black conservatives? Ever hear of Cornel West? How about Mary Frances Berry? I mean its really not THAT hard to find an African American who actually has risen to the top based not on their willingness to take money from white conservatives to say things that white people want to hear?

Why not just get Alan Keyes, and be done with it?

(oh, and Karen, consider the controversy over the lack of african-americans in the NHL, don't you think you could have come up with a slightly less inappropriate opening metaphor than "hockey rink"?)

T4T = KOS KIDZ
--------------------------------
Barak will be our first african american VP with Hillary in 2008 and first african american president in 2016!

Hillary is the now.
Barak is the future.

Posted by Time4Tolerance | November 29, 2007 9:15 AM

--------------
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
September 20, 2007
Stalist - BITE ME NEOCON! HOPE YOU ENJOY PAYING MORE TAXES WHEN OUR HILLARY IS ELECTED! I GO TO BED HAPPY EVERY NIGHT KNOWING THAT THERE IS ONE LESS DAY OF BUSHITLER AND NEOCONS AND WE ARE ONE DAY CLOSER TO MADAME PRESIDENT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON AND THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO SUPPORT THE SOCIAL JUSTICE YOU SO GREEDILY OPPOSE RIGHT NOW.

YOU LOSE!!!!
--------------------------------------------

Posted by the KOS KIDZ
September 22, 2007
HEY JOHN -BITE ME AND SHUT UP TRAITOR JOE LIBERMAN LIBERAL!

WERE YOU THERE FOR LAMONT?
HAVE YOU DONATED TO MOVEON.ORG?
ARE YOU AN ORIGINAL KOSSACK?
DO YOU KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT 9/11?
DO YOU KNOW THAT BUSHITLER NEEDS IMPEACHMENT?

NO?

THEN SHUT UP YOU POSER!
YOU ARE NOT A TRUE LIBERAL!

HILLARY!
HILLARY!

#1 FOR U AND ME!

HILLARY!
HILLARY!

VOTE 4 HER AND FREE HEALTHCARE THERE WILL B!

HILLARY!
HILLARY!

SHE IS THE 1 4 ME!

HILLARY!
HILLARY!

VOTE FOR HER OR GREEDY NEOCON U B!

-----------------------------------
Registration led to a loss of capitalization, but continued parody with a stron focus on Hillary. Interesting that you can't spell "Barack".
--------------------------------------------
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
September 19, 2007
YOU NEOCONS ARE PATHETIC!
WE WHIPPED YOU IN NOVEMBER!
WE WILL WHIP YOU AGAIN IN 08!

SAY IT WITH ME: MADAME PRESIDENT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON.

THEN IN 16, PRESIDENT BARAK OBAMA.

WE WILL HAVE 16 YEARS OF EXCELLENT DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP THAT WILL USHER THE END OF POVERTY, TERRORISM, AND GLOBAL WARMING! WE WILL HAVE NO MORE IRAQ!

JOIN US.
VOTE HILLARY 08!
----------------------------
Oh and Joe Klein is Anonymous

wow... I just read the article...
Its not about Obama. Its about Obama as seen through the lens of Hillary Clinton.

page 1 7 Obama mentions 3 Clinton mentions
page 2 10 Obama mentions 13 Clinton mentions
Page 3 13 Obama mentions 12 Clinton mentions

(and seriously, did we really need ANOTHER article on how Barack Obama's original campaign strategy was failing, and how Obama has become more critical of Hillary Clinton?)

Best Paul Lucasik conspiracy theory EVER:

"The simple fact is that Joe works for a media conglomerate that is HEAVILY invested in the "telecom" industry through Time-Warner Cable. Klein has openly acknowledged that he doesn't have the first clue about the contents of the RESTORE Act -- the only thing he really knows about it is the the RESTORE Act does not get his employers off the hook for their deliberate criminal actions.

That is really what this entire column was all about -- an attempt to intimidate Democrats into keeping his bosses out of jail by saying that they are soft on terrorism."

http://tinyurl.com/39kpcx

Anyone who thinks the world works like this needs to get out more. But I think if there is anything that people of all political persuasions can agree upon, it's that Paul Lunatic needs to get out more.

You, sir, are a crank. A very sick one.

By the way, I posted that message before I saw that Mr. Lukasiak (whose name I misspelled) has nothing better to do with his life than count Obama and Hillary mentions on each page of that story. Ladies and gentelman: Exhibit A. I repeat: YOU NEED TO GET OUT OF THE HOUSE.

Drop the mouse, and you may notice something called a door. Use it.

Hey Tumulty, Cox and the rest!

Just a heads-up - here's the next topic that Joke Line will lie about, and which you folks will remain silent, gutless, and cowardly about:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/pssst.html

Just thought you might want to get your spineless engines warmed up for another go at it!

well, Noho, why don't YOU explain why Joe would write a column trashing Democratic bona fides on National Security because of something ONE candidate said at the debate... and because they don't agree with him on a subject that he knows absolutely NOTHING about, other than the question of telecom immunity?

KT here:

I'm experimenting with answering some of your comments here in the comments section, in hopes that this can feel more like a conversation of people of good faith who want to understand each other. Good idea? Bad idea? Anyone know how to make a virtual cup of coffee?

First of all, I appreciate that so many of you seem to have read the story. And that Eric, for instance, took the time to lay his own thoughts out in such detail. I take the point that the story is primarily about process, and not substance, but I also think that the principal thesis of Obama's campaign is that he wants to change the process. I also think that as jayackroyd notes, the substantive differences between the candidates are relatively small, particularly in comparison with what the Republicans are offering. Do we really think that voters are going to be making their choice based on which candidate offers an individual mandate, or which one thinks Social Security ia a crisis? (I do think, by the way, that they all deserve credit for the specificity they have brought to this race; remember how Gore crucified Bradley for getting specific on health care? That's one of the reasons that the 2004 primary campaign was all but detail-free.)

And when it comes to process, Obama is in an interesting spot: He wants to change politics, but perversely, the only way he avoids the fate of all the others who have promised to change politics is ... to be better at the old politics than anyone else. That means not only connecting better with voters, but raising more money, building a better organization, and knowing when and how to give and take.

RKA disputes my assertion that exempting elderly from income tax is a pander. I stick with that one: People who make less than $50,000, it seems, are all in the same boat; if anything, the elderly are better off, because they have a better safety net, thanks to Social Security and medicare. I can't help think he wouldn't be saying this if Iowa, with its elderly population, wasn't the first contest.

I'm getting on a plane in a couple of hours, but look forward to reading the rest of your comments when I land. And again, thanks for taking the time to interact.

Ms. Tumulty,

This is a very interesting story and I enjoyed reading it but the fact is I think the title and supposed purpose, to highlight why Barack Obama is a contender, was not met.

The election on the democratic side is turning into a change election and that dynamic wasn't what you focused on in your artical. Instead you went through why the campaign was faltering and did not highlight why it's not apparently caught fire: that people want change. And that this means, clearly, in most voters minds the entire democratic field has met a threshold level of experience to make them comfortable with all the candidates. I think you could have done more mining that story and how it affects the Clinton campaign.

For example you write: "Obama has also begun to sharpen one of his strongest arguments — that experience is not the same thing as judgment — for which Clinton has not yet found a rejoinder." But clearly his sharpest argument is that we need true change and to turn a page - that's the central problem Sen. Clinton is having and why the experience argument has no sustained her to date. Through who knows what will happen on the final days of the election. The artical doesn't seem to capture what is happening right now that is making Obama's candidacy look like a real contender - only illustrating how it is happening in polls and on the ground campaign differences. Which are important to highligh I agree; but I think something else is happening that is causing Obama to connect in Iowa. I think that this long summer where everyone was saying he was faltering and the campaign was saying he just needs to let the public get to know him has done the trick. He's a smart guy. He's capable of being president now. And he represents clear change. I think that's why he's so appealing to a lot of people. He and Edwards together have a lead over Hillary Clinton and I think that just shows there is a large desire for true change that DOESN'T go back to the Clinton era and what it represents. Edwards campaign has faltered and Obama's has benefited from that and from the hits Hillary Clinton has taken.

That seems to be an undercurrent in this race that isn't being explored in my opinon. The Clinton years where for the Democrats what the Bush adminstration is to Republicans rightt now: a flashpoint, cultrual lightening where liberals felt compelled to defend something they didn't necessarily agree with and support. A lot like a lot of Republicans and the adminstration today. I get the feeling that people really well and truly do not want to go back to that, they want to unite and they want to win, and they want to present a clear democatic option to the nation that isn't steeped in nostalgia: which is why Obama, Edwards, and Richardson have the support they do in Iowa and NH. And why Obama surprised so many with his fundraising which I think is a symptom of that: people respect the Clintons but they don't want those divisions in the White House from day one.

That is why Barack Obama has become and always was a true contender in my book.

"In the cover story of the dead-tree TIME that hits newsstands tomorrow ..."

After the Joke Line farce and Time's inexplicable defensive crouch, most people will be using the remainder of thier subscriptions to the dead-tree edition to line bird cages and litter boxes.

Meanwhile ...

Time's Joe 'Patsy' Klein

Time magazine columnist Joe Klein appears to be the latest Judith Miller-- ie, a careerist journalist and damned shoddy reporter who has been manipulated by the "well-placed sources" he depends on for advancement and whom he will protect at all cost. A column he wrote last week has been dissected by Glen Greenwald at Salon and many others and shown to be--in addition to completely muddled--shot through with planted misinterpretations by Republican sources who, through Klein, decried recent Democratic federal eavesdropping legislation as weak on terror for proposing to prevent the U.S. government from eavesdropping on calls made outside the U.S. by non-citizens-- or as Rush Limbaugh might put it, "for providing lilly-livered protections for those who mean to do us harm."

Klein made some half-assed excuses for this blatantly false interpretation of the legislation that culminated in him saying that, in effect, the House bill he had been so stridently writing about was in fact too complicated for him to unravel, that he had "neither the time nor the legal background to figure out" who was interpreting its provisions correctly. The comment thread following this craven backpedaling is priceless.

Best, and the reason for this post, is that after dodging for days, Time finally gave up Priscilla Painton as the editor of the column. Greenwald and journalist Jane Hamsher called Painton to ask about Klein's sources and to find out what Time was going to do about the errors in the column. After ten seconds, that's right, Time Deputy Managing Editor Priscilla Painton hung up the phone! That's how much Time magazine (circulation 4 million) thinks about investigative journalism! You can leave a polite message for Priscilla, asking her to come clean about the sources behind Joe Klein's misinformation, at: 212-522-2022, or you can email Priscilla's boss, Rick Stengel at: richard_stengel@timemagazine.com. Please do!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-tomasic/times-joe-patsy-klein_b_74564.html

Hmm, Paul. I think anyone with good sense can piece together what happened. I certainly don't need to invent whacked-out conspiracy theories about it.

But that is how the mind of a paranoid crank works. They think the whole word is in a conspiracy against "their side." And so when something happens they don't like, they just make stuff up.

Eric wrote:

"...the article fails to put the current situation in any true context. Starting with the Russert/Williams debate, the press trained its guns on Clinton and has been blasting away ever since. And the press has been promoting Obama non-stop. Why is the press behaving in this way? I've got some theories about this, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. Whatever the motives, this is clearly happening, and it would be quite strange indeed if sustained media hostility toward Clinton, and sustained press promotion of Obama, did not have an effect on the campaign."

"But Karen airbrushes all of this out of her portrait of Obama and his 'moment.' Maybe it's too much to ask that Karen acknowledge that her puff piece is a *part* of the Obama promotion exercise (which it surely is), but it's just categorically misleading to her readers to pretend that this isn't happening."

Then RKA wrote:

"I think that it is interesting that Clinton supporters would see all this as unfairly favoring Obama. Apparently unless the coverage fawns over Hillary and dismisses her opponents, as it had for the entire campaign up until the Philly debate, it is biased against her."

Eric:
Are you a Clinton supporter?
RKA seems to be implying that someone who reports "sustained media hostility toward Clinton, and sustained press promotion of Obama" and won't "pretend that this isn't happening" must be an advocate for the HRC Campaign crying "unfair".

That sounds like an accusation of bias to me--bias whose existence is supposedly proven by the fact that you do not report that "the coverage fawns over Hillary and dismisses her opponents", and do contend that whatever treatment that campaign receives might have something to with how the media operates, and wasn't simply "earned" by her.

In light of the fact that RKA is an admitted Obama partisan with an obvious agenda to promote, would you please set the record straight as to whether you have an axe to grind, or you're simply reporting what seems like reality to you?

good points, Gator.

The impression that I got when reading the piece was that Obama was fading this summer because he wasn't attacking Hillary. But that had nothing to do with it -- Democrats do want change, but they are angry, and want someone who reflects that anger.

Obama's 'why can't we all just get along' approach wasn't cutting it for people who have watched spineless Democrats getting rolled by aggressive Republicans for the last seven years -- and Obama was signalling that the more agressive and insistent the GOP was, the more he would be compromising Democratic principles if he were elected. While Obama said all the right things, there was no sense that he would actually stand resolutely for those things in the face of a relentless GOP assault. It wasn't until he showed his willingness to "take a stand" (and the atriocious MSNBC and CNN assaults on Clinton) that he began to regain his footing.

Karen unfortunately ignores this whole dynamic because all corporate media people are able to see is "the horserace" -- and they decided it was all about Hillary vs Obama. It wasn't -- it was people asking "who is the best person to take on the GOP?"....and Obama wasn't it.

oh, and while I'm just as disgusted as everyone else is with Klein, may I suggest a moratorium given that Karen is actually willing to discuss her piece with us here in the comments?

(Great move, btw, Karen! I may not be crazy about your piece, but I am crazy about your willingness to respond to commenters in this fashion!)

Off topic, via atrios. Michael Duffy, two Friedmans ago:

So it may take the 43rd President a little more time than it normally does to execute this particular U-turn. And he will do all he can to make it look more like a lane change. But sometime in the next month or so, Bush will begin the biggest foreign policy course correction of his presidency. No matter what else may get stapled onto it, the maneuver will be based on the agreement reached by the bipartisan commission led by former Secretary of State James Baker III and former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton. Bush aides said last week that there is already agreement on the name for the restart: A New Way Forward, which borrows from the commission's own title, The Way Forward--New Approach. Among people who have known Bush for decades, there is almost as much certainty that he needs to disengage from Iraq as there are doubts about whether he has the wiring and instincts--much less the desire--to pull it off. "He is not stupid," says a commission source. "But he is stubborn. And he is very dug in. It takes a big person to find a way to walk back from some of this and embrace reality."

And,of course, in the most recent news, the President has made official what anyone who has been following along at home. The occupation will be "enduring."

I have not had time to read Karen's piece. But, massive kudos to her for wading into the comments threads. Considering the way they've been lately, that's quite brave! Hat's off to you, Karen!

And the press has been promoting Obama non-stop.

Ha ha. Tell me another one. Check out e.g. the front page of WaPo for an over-the-top hit piece against Obama.

'why can't we all just get along' approach

I find it interesting that there are areas where Obama's "can't we just get along" approach has been quite harmful to his campaign. The flap over the Donnie McClurkin appearance certainly led many of us who want a strong fighting candidate to decide quite abruptly that Obama wasn't it. His attempts to please everyone managed to P-O just about everyone who holds a strong opinion on GLBT rights AND religious freedom.

The instances where Obama has impressed me the most is where he had the audacity to speak simple truths that defy conventional wisdom.

In particular, when he drew fire over his comments on finding OBL in Pakistan, he gained a significant amount of respect from me. After all, someone has to be the one to note the Emperor's naked state.

Ha ha. Tell me another one. Check out e.g. the front page of WaPo for an over-the-top hit piece against Obama.

wow crust, that really is execrable.

But I don't think it disproves the overall idea that the media has promoted Obama's candidacy relentlessly. The fact that we are getting these kinds of hit pieces is simply another example of the complete corruption of the mainstream media (and may be a reaction to complaints that Obama's coverage was too favorable. I mean, this kind of complete and utter crap doesn't just happen...and doesn't just wind up on the front page for no reason.)

>>Democrats do want change, but they are angry, and want someone who reflects that anger.>>

Yes, Paul wants all the candidates to be as angry as he is.

Anyway, that analysis totally ignores the fact that John Edwards has been the "netroots" candidate, who has been taking the most aggressive -- even "angry" stands -- and his campaign has not really caught fire.

Most the Democrats I know -- who aren't "netroots" types, but just normal people (who vote) -- want someone who can WIN. Hillary has just been more impressive in debates. And people love Bill. I think that is the essence of why she's doing well at this point.

I flip back and forth between O and H, but I think the article correctly sums up Obama's dilemma. He has to show people he can play hardball, but at the same time, I don't think it will help him to turn into an attack machine, especially against a fellow Democrat. What he really needs to do is win Democrats over with his charisma. His charisma, BTW, is basically his candidacy's reason for being. So far, he's been uneven, and so far, so have his polls.

Thanks for jumping in here Karen. It is greatly appreciated.

Karen says:

Obama is in an interesting spot: He wants to change politics, but perversely, the only way he avoids the fate of all the others who have promised to change politics is ... to be better at the old politics than anyone else.

Yes, this is the fundamental problem with the Obama campaign, and with Obama, in general IMO. He looks fresh and new, sounds fresh and new. Came out of the gates with a JFK quality, but without the philandering and the bootlegger dad.

But it turns out that he's not willing to back this up. Now, as I said, I don't think Karen and her ilk are free of blame here. Howard Dean provided a fine example of what the media does to people who work outside their frames.

The line that keeps coming back to me is Jon Stewart's, when he remarked, in reference to Obama "What's up with the Senate anyway? Do they give you a stupid pill right after the oath of office?"

gator_fan mentions that this is a "change election" which I think is right from the electorate's pov. But Obama is not running like a change candidate--and he has the opportunity to do so on the three issues that I said are the major issues. But he instead chooses the path great feared by Maud-dib, "the clear, safe course that leads ever downward into stagnation."

So is Clinton. And poor Edwards is trying desperately to run as that change candidate, but nobody is giving him a cover on major newsweeklies. Not to mention Edwards has waffled on Iraq, and not backed up his anti-lobbyist talk with a real commitment to single payer, universal health care, like in the rest of the OECD. All these stances reflect a democratic strategy of letting the republicans self-immolate, giving as little ammo as necessary to the media, obsessed with costs of everything except this godforsaken occupation.

Obama's face on a clear commitment to ending the occupation would make a big difference. But he's chosen to revive the SS bamboozlement instead.

It's too bad. He had a shot at a movement.

Posted by gator_fan | November 29, 2007 10:28 AM

"The Clinton years where for the Democrats what the Bush adminstration is to Republicans rightt now: a flashpoint, cultrual lightening where liberals felt compelled to defend something they didn't necessarily agree with and support."

gator_fan:
A very interesting idea, well worth exploring.
Thanks for your comment.

p_luk, I do agree that the media coverage has been generally more favorable of late to Obama than to Clinton, but I think that is mostly a matter of the media hitting at Clinton as opposed to promoting Obama. I'd argue that the media has been much more generous to e.g. Giuliani than to Obama. I mean seriously if shag-gate (see e.g. TPM) featured Obama instead of Giuliani, do you think the MSM would treat as the minor story it has so far?

Thinking about it more, Obama does have a dilemna. The pundit class wants Obama to be conventional. John Edwards for example is "too radical" for them, even though in most European countries he would be right of center.

The base wants to be excited, yet Obama knows that the second he enthuses the base by saying things that the Broder types hate, his coverage turns into haircut and UFO stories.

It's a balancing act. He has to please two different groups with different agendas. Radical centrism might make Richard Cohen fall in love, but the second he starts pushing for economic justice too hard, or re regulating media monopolies, it's over.

I think both Hillary and Barack take a great deal of flack from the MSM. The true question is do GOP candidates get equal and enduring flack? The madrassa story ran for several days before it died down. A similar period elapsed for stories about Hillary's supposed collapse at the Philadelphia debate.
Rudy has two recent issues regarding tax payers being charged for booty calls when Rudy was pursuing his current wife, and ties of his company to unsavory individuals in Qatar. I doubt that Rudy will undergo days of bad press equivalent to what Hillary and Barack experience, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
If the Guiliani story duration is short-lived then we have a more pressing issue with MSM regarding anti-Democratic Party bias that suprcedes individual candidate attacks.

And Karen, let me be the upteenth person to say props for commenting here (especially in the midst of the House Dems and/or Joe Klein are "beyond stupid" over FISA controversy). Now that you have registration, there shouldn't be the problem with spoofing of Swamplanders there was in the past.

Karen, thank you for responding.

OT, more bad news for Joe Klein and Priscilla Painton. The Chicago Trib, which excerpted Klein's piece has published a real correction:

A Time magazine essay by Joe Klein that was excerpted on the editorial page Wednesday incorrectly stated that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act would require a court approval of individual foreign surveillance targets. It does not.

No stenography here. They're not relying on the fact that some anonymous GOP sources claim otherwise here to try to wiggle out.

And this is surely bad news for supporters of an amnesty provision for telcos who violated FISA.

Crust--

Hoekstra has now gone on the record in an incoherent propaganda filled piece over at NRO.

Thanks for the Trib update.

Karen, many thanks for your further thoughts and for your willingness to engage with us out here in the "great unwashed."

But I have a couple of questions. You write, "remember how Gore crucified Bradley for getting specific on health care? That's one of the reasons that the 2004 primary campaign was all but detail-free."

Say what? Hello? No, I don't remember anything like that. I do remember a deeply detailed discussion of health care between the two at a town-hall type forum in NH, though. And I remember literally endless crappy stuff from your colleagues all over MSM about earth tones and Love Canal and inventing the Internet and three-button suits and alpha males.

Are you truly saying that some long-forgotten moment between Gore and Bradley in 2000 is an imnportant enough reason for 2004 being "detail-free"?

What I remember is the MSM's utter lack of interest in details in the 2000 general, when GWB was allowed to lie and misrepresent and lie some more about what he'd done as governor and what his "plan" for this or that actually said. I think what happened in 2000 was that it showed candidates they could *get away with* lack of details and nobody in the media that counts would care.

And then you say, "People who make less than $50,000, it seems, are all in the same boat; if anything, the elderly are better off, because they have a better safety net, thanks to Social Security and medicare."

This is kind of breathtaking. Yes, the elderly have the puny SS payments, and Medicare is without question a huge help. But Medicare doesn't help you wiht the day-to-day costs of surviving, which keep going up and going up, while SS increases only minimally.

The absolutely critical difference for the elderly is that they have zero prospect for any increase in income to pay for those increasing costs. And God help you if you need some sort of caretaker services to enable you to stay in your home. Any idea how fast 30 bucks an hour for home help will eat into your ability to pay your day-to-day bills?

Yes, $50,000 is plenty to live in modest comfort this year as long as you stay reasonably healthy and able to do things for yourself, but 10 years from now, it won't be, and elderly people on fixed income will be helpless to do anything about it.

The walls come crumbling down.

"So there are WMDs in Iraq, and they could kill Americans there or all over the world." Peter Hoekstra and Rick Santorum, June 26, 2006, WSJ http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008568

Over the last week, a venomous debate has raged between Time columnist Joe Klein and his far-Left critics about the meaning of Democratic legislation aimed at how foreign targets in foreign countries are treated under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. With respect to the arguments of his critics, Klein rightly pointed out that, “This is all a partisan waste of time, fodder for lawyers and civil liberties extremists.” He also was correct that we should be seeking bipartisan consensus on critical national security issues rather than using them as pawns to further extreme political agendas.

As one of Klein’s sources for the complex technical and legal points that seem to be in contention — and because Klein, his critics, and Democrats in Congress have accused Republicans of trying to “misrepresent” these issues — it is important to correct and clarify the record on three critical points, which also bear heavily on the broader debate currently at hand.

Peter Hoekstra, Novermber 29, 2007, NRO http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGVlNzk2YmQ4NGZjNjFhZjU4NmE0OGYyOTBhYjNiNDA=

Fabulous.

Karen, thanks for stopping in. For the record, I think it's a good idea for you to interact with the commenters. On that note, it's probably better for you to set aside 30 mins. to an hour after posting to do just that, rather than drop a comment right before you board a plane (that's rather driveby-ish, IMO). But I'm nitpicking, so on to the piece.

Karen, I couldn't get past the first page, mainly because I don't have the desire to spend time reading a 4-5 page play-by-play piece that boils down to nothing more than "Candidate X is surging, so stay tuned for more horse-racey news!" I think your readers' time is more valuable than this.

Maybe later in your piece you explored why Obama is "surging," but I doubt it- we've seen this before, and there's no evidence to suggest that you or TIME have lost your appetite for political play-by-play. Even if you did explore the why, you probably should have done it much, much sooner.

And as play-by-play goes, I'm surprised (but not really) that TIME's preeminent campaign reporter hasn't said a single word about Rudy billing the taxpayers for his love affairs. Considering that this is an ELECTION BLOG, I would have expected more than just one post by Ana about this. Disappointing all around.

...

Also, on another topic, I think it would benefit all the Swampland contributors, Karen included, to revisit and discuss Joke Line's dishonest and lazy FISA piece, considering the incoherent stance TIME is taking on whether there was an error to begin with (e.g. Joke Line has kindasorta admitted error, while editor Priscilla Painton concedes no such error). At least Karen and Ana and Jay could provide a more detailed explanation of the standards expected and process involved in writing and fact checking a piece. Really, this is bigger than Joke Line- what kind of professional standards exist at TIME, and what kind of disciplinary action would result if a writer violated those standards?

We now have Joe Klein's source on the FISA nonsense. It's Rep. Peter Hoekstra. A wingnut from Michigan. Nice job of fact checking, Joe.

http://tinyurl.com/ysv5gk

P.S. That link takes you to an FDL post.

p_luk said:
oh, and while I'm just as disgusted as everyone else is with Klein, may I suggest a moratorium given that Karen is actually willing to discuss her piece with us here in the comments?

I disagree p_luk, because Klein's FISA piece relates more to the editorial process and standards at TIME overall. That means it affects everyone, Karen included.

If we can't trust the TIME editorial staff to properly factcheck and hold its writers accountable for their screwups, then why should we pay attention to anything written under the TIME banner, Karen included?

Hoekstra has now gone on the record in an incoherent propaganda filled piece over at NRO.

I love the Planet Gore ad on the right of the page. There are people who dissemble as a full time job over there.

More at Firedoglake.

Darn--Joe Klein's guilty conscience scooped me...

Jay, thanks for the pointer to Hoekstra (link in JKGC's comment). I stand corrected.

Karen, I think your problem is wanting to talk to people of "good faith." I don't see a lot here. Just a lot of repetitious, nasty and obsessed people.

Just wondering, how do we know anything in the article or this post is true?

Karen, can you pass this on to one of your lazier colleagues.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I read it somewhere and thought it might be useful.

Hoekstra has now gone on the record in an incoherent propaganda filled piece over at NRO.

yeah, Hoekstra's piece shows us exactly where Joe got all his lies from -- and its obvious that Klein is so profoundly stupid he can't tell the difference between a valid argument, and pure BS.

Take this little gem...

Nonetheless, as a matter of law, courts have clearly and repeatedly stated that an express court order is not required for such incidental collection even in the more restrictive criminal context. Contrary to the sound bites of the left, Federal courts also have explicitly held that such incidental collection in criminal cases does not violate the Fourth Amendment, United States v. Figueroa, 757 F.2d 466 (2d Cir. 1985). Courts have traditionally given even more deference in the context of foreign intelligence gathering.

The reason that courts don't require a warrant for "incidental collection" is that this collection can only (legally) occur when "probable cause" has been established which permits the issuance of a warrant for electronic surveillance of criminal "targets". Once that "probable cause" is established for a criminal target, there is no need to get a warrant for "incidental collection" of information for each person that the target calls.

But there is absolutely no standard that the intelligence community is required to reach in order to do electronic surveillance of foreign to foreign communication. There is no warrant issued in such cases -- no probably cause established. And because there is absolutely no restrictions on the intelligence community of foriegn to foreign communications, and its not just "terrorists" who are the foreigners that the US is wiretapping, it becomes necessary to issue a warrant (under far less stringent standards than a criminal wiretap warrant requires) to ensure that the government is not using foreign "targets" to illegally spy on American citizens.

The fact that Klein can't figure this OBVIOUS stuff out himself just demostrates why he is such a sap --- and the fact that he never bothered to find out that Hoekstra is lying through his teeth before going to press just demonstrates what a dishonest scumbag who will do anything to promote his own personal agenda he is.

This is totally off topic but this correction needs to be published somewhere on Time.com so I'll put it here. Borrowing from the Chicago Tribune:

CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS

A Time magazine essay by Joe Klein that was excerpted on the editorial page Wednesday incorrectly stated that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act would require a court approval of individual foreign surveillance targets. It does not.

well, you also have to wonder if Hoekstra was the source why he wouldn't speak on the record.

I do hope that Rush Holt takes him up on his offer to debate this....

Sweet - now we can listen to Time bloggers NOT talk about how Time bloggers take republican spin in one ear, and happily steno it out as fact!

Because Time bloggers have amply demonstrated that they're too craven to talk about their own sickness, preferring instead to spend their time on things like paper cutout doll videos and the like.

From the Just Say You're Wrong, And It All Goes Away Dept:

Joke Line, Time, and all of its allow-liars-in-their-midst bloggers could take a lesson in integrity from the Chicago Tribune:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/29/tribune/index.html

The Chicago Tribune vs. Time magazine

As I noted yesterday, The Chicago Tribune reprinted factually false excerpts from Joe Klein's Time column. But unlike Time -- which disgracefully continues to stand behind Klein's falsehoods and actually bolster them -- the Tribune shows that it has basic journalistic integrity by posting this clear, unequivocal statement repudating Klein's false statements:

CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS

A Time magazine essay by Joe Klein that was excerpted on the editorial page Wednesday incorrectly stated that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act would require a court approval of individual foreign surveillance targets. It does not.

The shameful conduct and total lack of integrity at Time Magazine becomes more evident every day.

p_luk, I take it from your latest comment that you want to lift your moratorium on discussing Joke Line's piece? I poke because I care, p_luk...

But, continuing the discussion, I speculate that TIME's shoddy and amoral editorial environment merely enables Joke Line's behavior, and I assert that's a bigger problem than any given piece written in TIME. What, you don't honestly think that this is the first time Joke Line wrote about legislation he didn't read, do you? No, this is merely the first time he actually admitted that, which is why the firestorm developed in the first place. Sammy Sosa was using corked bats long before he got caught using corked bats, and Joke Line has written about legislation he didn't read and topics he knows nothing about.

And the TIME editorial staff and his TIME colleagues (Karen included) didn't care, p_luk! They didn't care enough to check his stuff to make sure he and his sources were right. And Karen thinks that there's nothing wrong with Joke Line, and he just likes to "stir things up" with his pieces. None of them care enough to say 'boo' about this, p_luk.

The fact that the editorial staff and his colleagues have neither the desire nor the competence necessary to reign in the likes of Joke Line should be a gigantic red flag to everyone. It's a ticking bomb, and we should expect even worse pieces to come out in the future.

Go Karen for actually caring about what your readers think! (I profess I have not read the article yet and therefore will not offer any opinion on that.)

That is certainly a refreshing change from the Joke of your colleague Joe Klein and his editor for their steadfast refusal to acknowledge a factual error. Their reputation is (already) tarnished and I hope it does not stain the rest of TIME staff.

sdnalpmawS -

They're tarnished with every post they make which ignores the depraved indifference to the truth that has been exposed in their outfit.

p_luk, I take it from your latest comment that you want to lift your moratorium on discussing Joke Line's piece? I poke because I care, p_luk...

the moratorium I suggested was merely for the duration of Karen's visit into the comments section before she got on the plane -- once she left, it didn't matter.

Its bascially the same rule as over at FDL...when they have a guest answering questions in the comments, you try to stay on-topic. And I'd really like to see more of what Karen tried to do this morning -- and the likelihood of a repeat effort would have been greatly reduced if all we did was complain about Klein, and why she hadn't said anything.

I take your point about the failure of Klein's colleagues to address his completely unethical behavior, if you notice Karen hasn't posted anything in the last couple of days. And while I may be reading too much into this, not posting is probably as far as she could go in terms of making a statement about Klein. At least she wasn't posting a whole like of bright, shiny objects like AMC in an effort to distract our attention while she ignored the elephant in the room.

Or maybe she's just as craven as the rest of the Swampland crew ;-)

>>At least she wasn't posting a whole like of bright, shiny objects like AMC in an effort to distract our attention while she ignored the elephant in the room.>>

Conspiracy theory number two! That is two Paul Lukasiak conspiracy theories in two days. (http://tinyurl.com/39kpcx)

Actually, AMC didn't seem to post any more than she usually did. So another theory shot down. But that's okay. I can't wait for tomorrow.

This thread went on topic for about four posts before it got hijacked again for yet more Glenn Greenwald reposts. The Obama part wasn't that interesting a conversation -- people really didn't have much insight except to keep saying "MSM" over and over -- but at least it was SOMETHING.

And by the way, this, from Paul, of course, is hilarious:

>>(oh, and Karen, consider the controversy over the lack of african-americans in the NHL, don't you think you could have come up with a slightly less inappropriate opening metaphor than "hockey rink"?)>>

You have no idea what kind of an absurd self-parody you are.

I think she wasn't posting a lot because she was somewhere (Iowa?) working on the story she just posted. That's speculation, but if true, all the more disappointing...

KT:"remember how Gore crucified Bradley for getting specific on health care? That's one of the reasons that the 2004 primary campaign was all but detail-free"

Karen, could you explain this, please? Was Gore out of line? Wrong? Are you faulting Bradley's plan? His preparation?

I, for one, believe the entire campaign should consist of nothing but the equivalent of that week, and your coverage should include nothing but that sort of analysis. Do you disagree? Why?

>>remember how Gore crucified Bradley for getting specific on health care? That's one of the reasons that the 2004 primary campaign was all but detail-free">>

I'm glad someone brought that up. That's been the most interesting point raised so far.

I supported Bradley, and I was very disappointed by what I considered Al Gore's low-road campaign against him, considering there wasn't much difference in their positions. Al Gore ended up chewing Bradley up and spitting him out, but sometimes victories come with a price, and I believe Gore's conduct in the primary was one of the under-the-radar reasons for his lackluster showing in November. (For example, how many Nader supporters also went for Bradley?)

That's my theory anyway.

Hi Karen,

Thank you for responding to part of my comment. If you look at what I said, I did not categorically say that the senior tax plan has no element of pander in it, I was primarily pointing out that no where in the story did Obama have a chance to dispute that assertion or argue the policy on the merits.

One could argue that given the limitation of the medicare rx benefit, the rising costs of energy, etc that it does not make sense to tax low-income seniors and even though that policy has obvious political appeal to an important voting demographic, it still may make good sense.

I don't view pandering as an either/or binary function...it's a spectrum. Much of what politicians do in a democracy is respond to the needs of voters and some things have more of a pandering quality than others. I think part of the test of how much a policy position is a pander is dependent on the degree to which it diverges from the politician's true beliefs. Now, if there were some reason to believe that Obama's core priciples are that low income seniors should pay the same taxes as everyone else but he is saying this simply to buy their votes, well then that would rank high on the pander spectrum. But I see no reason to believe that Obama does not believe this is good policy. But we'll really never know because there is nothing in the story that gives Obama's perspective on the matter. I would have preferred you asked him the question, "Senator, are you pandering to low income seniors when you offer them a tax cut?" or something like that, get his response, and let the reader decide. I just think your unilateral declaration of pandering without him having a chance in the story to respond is a bit unfair.

But, hey, thanks for responding to my comment and I hope you had a nice flight.

Karen wrote (and another david asked about): "[R]emember how Gore crucified Bradley for getting specific on health care? That's one of the reasons that the 2004 primary campaign was all but detail-free."

It was more a matter of the press corps crucifying Gore for criticizing Bradley. Gore made an accurate and substantive criticism of Bradley's plan that the numbers didn't add up, a criticism that even some Bradley advisers conceded was valid. But the press corps liked Bradley and disliked Gore. So somehow they turned this into a problem about Gore. The invaluable Bob Somerby has the details. Much the same story would be repeated in the general when Bush's numbers on Social Security didn't add up, Gore called him on it and the press pilloried ... Gore.

But the press corps liked

noho1:"what I considered Al Gore's low-road campaign against him"

Could you cite an example of what you considered "low-road"?

Karen, of all the Swampland bloggers, you are the one I would be least likely to throw rocks and garbage at should I ever encounter any of you on the street. Just felt I should say that.

Now the bad:
Harvard’s Center for Public Leadership National Leadership Index

The media focuses too much on trivial, rather than important issues: 61% strongly agree, 27% somewhat agree.

Media coverage has too much influence on who Americans vote for: 56% strongly agree, 28% somewhat agree.

Large corporations have too much influence in what the news media reports: 55% strongly agree, 28% somewhat agree.

Most journalists don't make an effort to get the whole story: 46% strongly agree, 30% somewhat agree.

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/leadership/images/CPLpdf/cpl_index%202007%20%283%29.pdf

Actually, AMC didn't seem to post any more than she usually did. So another theory shot down. But that's okay. I can't wait for tomorrow.

actually, we really need a better class of sock-puppet around here.

Of course, you only just showed up a few days ago, so there was no reason to suspect that you had any idea of how frequently AMC posts -- but in case you had been "lurking", I checked out AMC's posting rate.

Yesterday, she had 9 separate posts (including swampcast)

In the previous 15 weekdays (since she rarely posts on weekends, I'm not counting that) she posted an average of 2.6 times a day (including Swampcasts)

Her average over the previous three wednesdays was 3.33 post/day

She never came close to nine posts on any of the previous 15 days -- 6 posts on one day, 5 on one day, 4 on one day, -- and 12 weekdays with 3 or fewer posts.

In other words, you're full of crap. Not that anyone will be surprised about that -- but its always nice to have objective proof of such things...

Hey "Another David" ...

To be honest, I can't remember, and it's seven years ago and no longer really relevant, so I am not going to research it. It's just my memory. That Daily Howler link is interesting and raises some good points.

I just remember seeing uber-hack Bob Shrum, who you remember was Gore's advisor, arguing Gore's position on one of the Sunday shows. He looked like such the epitome of the Washington jerkoff, it didn't seem like he believed for a second what he was saying, and you knew he would be making Bradley's points if he thought he had a better chance to win. Bradley was my Senator for many years, and was a good man and would have been a great President. I think whenever your candidate loses it's not pleasant, and Gore's victory left a particularly bitter taste in my mouth.

If Gore went after Bush like he went after Bradley, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.

noho1, you are typing but you are not saying anything. You accused Al Gore of staging a "low-road" campaign. Don't you think that ought to be based on something? Anything?

To be honest, I can't remember, and it's seven years ago and no longer really relevant, so I am not going to research it. It's just my memory. .... If Gore went after Bush like he went after Bradley, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.

geez, are you deliberately parodying Klein here? The "I can't back up my statement, but I'm going to reassert the smear anyway" is pure Klein.

go back to scaife and tell him to send us someone who is more of a challenge...

OK, point taken, p_l. I still don't think there were any big conspiracies involved, but hey, it is difficult to argue with a guy with unlimited time on his hands.

See I admitted I was wrong. See how easy that is. When you misquoted Joe Klein yesterday, you refused to do so.

Anyway, you have already turned to another conspiracy theory, when you accused me of being a "sockpuppet." A sockpuppet is someone who disguises their identity. I can tell you, right now, that theory is wrong. I have no connection with Time.com, other than as a reader (and long-time lurker and occasional commenter.) But please, tell me, who do you think I am? You must have a theory.

Speak of sockpuppets, what do you think of this Glenn Greenwald thing? The evidence seems convincing to me: http://tinyurl.com/yqec89

I work for Scaife now! You really are nuts!

How about this, if you can supply evidence I work for Scaife, I will then do the research about the Gore vs. Bradley debate in 2000.

noho1:"If Gore went after Bush like he went after Bradley, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today"

My impression of Gore in 1999-2000 was one of remarkable consistency of strategy and temperament from primary through general. Do you recollect a particular occasion where you think Gore might have laid down for Bush?

From Hoekstra's piece: It takes a pretty good degree of self-absorption or paranoia for someone to believe that efforts to target al-Qaeda operatives in foreign countries are somehow about them.

Does Joe Klein and Pete Hoekstra think that journalists Christiane Amanpour, Andrea Mitchell, James Bamford, James Risen, Vernon Loeb, Seymour Hersh, Bill Gertz, and John C. K. Daly are all "self-absorbed"?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007365.php

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Firstfruits

"Does Joe Klein and Pete Hoekstra think that journalists Christiane Amanpour, Andrea Mitchell, James Bamford, James Risen, Vernon Loeb, Seymour Hersh, Bill Gertz, and John C. K. Daly are all "self-absorbed"? "

Yes.

>>Do you recollect a particular occasion where you think Gore might have laid down for Bush?>>

Yo, I never said "laid down." He was obviously more effective against Bradley than Bush.

Are you saying you think that Gore ran an effective campaign? (And I presume, it's all the media's fault he tied/lost/barely won/whatever?)

By the way, if my statement is Pure Klein, this statement is pure Paul Lukasiak:

My quotes don't have to be accurate "in all cases": http://tinyurl.com/2d8mqu

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2007/11/against_permanent_bases_in_ira.html#comment-360446

"Are you saying you think that Gore ran an effective campaign?"

Yes, I do.

Awesome, anotherdavid. If I ever run for something, remind me not to hire you as my campaign manager.

So, noho1, your idea of a conversation is make unsupported statements, move goalposts, be dick. Do I have that straight?

Um, anotherdavid. You misquoted me as saying Gore "laid down" for Bush.

Paul called me a "sockpuppet" and said I worked for Scaife. THAT is an unsupported statement.

Tell me what about Gore's 2000 campaign -- a campaign that DID NOT result in his getting the Presidency -- you consider "effective."

Back THAT up.

As for the "low-road" thing, because I don't want to be here all day, I concede the point. I always said it was a subjective impression.

BTW, political campaigns are effective based on whether they win or lose. Gore is not President. And he wasn't the underdog. Therefore it was an ineffective campaign.

Lukasiak and Another David--I think noho1 is coming on to you.

You believe 300 voters in Fl changing their minds would have made Gore's ineffective campaign effective?

Paul called me a "sockpuppet" and said I worked for Scaife. THAT is an unsupported statement.

Yes, it's an unsupported statement. But it does happen.

BTW, political campaigns are effective based on whether they win or lose. Gore is not President. And he wasn't the underdog. Therefore it was an ineffective campaign.

He wasn't the underdog? He was down by fifteen to twenty points in through the summer of '00, until the conventions, and came back to win the popular vote. That would seem to me to be a fairly effective campaign.
Sure, Gore made a lost of mistakes (the debates being the one he had the most control over), but this revisionism about how the race was his to lose is just nonsense.

No. A convincing victory that didn't depend on 300 miscast votes would have made it effective.

Political campaigns exist to win. That's what they do. That is how they are judged.

How was Gore's campaign effective again? I missed when you posted that.

Oh come on, Jim, he was only behind that after the Republican convention.

And by the same token, he was ahead by ten points at the convention by ten points and basically ended the election tied.

Karen, I do hope we eventually hear from you about the basis for your characterization of Gore's criticism of Bradley's health care plan as "crucified". Is this a compliment for his effectiveness? A criticism of his tone? Please elaborate.

Lukasiak and Another David--I think noho1 is coming on to you.

I guess he's too much of a newbie to know that I've been stalking you for months, Enceladus, and have eyes for no one else!

Gore's campaign was effective enough to win the national vote, and Florida's as well.