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

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

Continue reading »

Mark Halperin does it again:

Two Republicans close to the situation say McCain has apparently settled on Mitt Romney as his running mate. [..]

Developing...

Nice Drudgian touch at the end, Mark.  Of course, Halperin pulled down the page saying that the Veep was going to be Dick Lugar just a little bit before, which appeared to be based on nothing more Lugar endorsing McCain.  Brilliant.  Obviously, still wishing to not blow his "MSM Maker of Conventional Wisdom" title, Halperin updated with this weasel: 

And/but:

NY Times: "People close to the [McCain] campaign also floated a wild-card choice, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq."

Give me a break.  Either report the news as it happens or start calling yourself Miss Cleo.  This wild guessing is insulting to our intelligence.

Two weeks ago, it seemed Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter had just about had it with John McCain. The columnist said he’s “misread McCain,” who, it turns out, is “a surprisingly immature politician” who may not be “ready to lead.” Alter’s piece concluded that McCain had “mortgaged his precious personal honor.”

But underlying Alter’s argument is that McCain is still a good guy who’s been led astray by irresponsible advisors who’ve led him astray. McCain’s ugly campaign is “out of sync with the real guy,” Alter said.

In his new column, Alter takes McCain to task for “making stuff up about Barack Obama,” and this time, Alter doesn’t make excuses for the Republican nominee.

As usual, news organizations are deeply afraid to say that one side is more negative than the other. Doing so sounds “unfair.” It’s much easier, and less controversial, to say that “both candidates” are being negative. That would be “balanced”, but also untrue. […]

[O]verall, and to his credit, Obama has not engaged in anywhere near the number of falsehoods as McCain.

For about a month, McCain’s campaign has been resorting to charges that are patently false. When Obama traveled abroad in July, to positive reviews, McCain decided he had to make attack ads that went far beyond the norm. In the past, plainly deceptive ads were the province of the Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee or independent committees free to fling mud that didn’t bear the fingerprints of candidates. But not this time. These smears come directly from the candidate.

The litany is no doubt familiar to those watching the campaign closely. McCain lied about Obama being responsible for gas prices. Then about Obama’s treatment of wounded U.S. troops in Germany. And then again about Obama’s tax policies.

[W]hen he resorts to these kinds of falsehoods, and casts such aspersions on his opponent’s patriotism, John McCain is no longer putting his country first. If he were, he would recognize that the interests of the nation require a relatively truthful campaign. To fulfill his image of himself, McCain should stop lying about his opponent. For a man with his claims to honor and integrity, that’s not too much to ask.

I think McCain has lost Jonathan Alter.

  It’s not surprising at all that the Washington Post’s David Broder would prefer to see the presidential candidates stick to responsible, substance-driven campaigns. It’s also not surprising that Broder would enjoy a series of town-hall “debates” between the two candidates.

What’s odd, though, is seeing Broder try to connect the two, suggesting the lack of the latter has a causal relationship with the lack of the prior.

The first question I asked John McCain and then Barack Obama was: How do you feel about the tone and direction of the campaign so far?

No surprise. Both men pronounced themselves thoroughly frustrated by the personal bitterness and negativism they have seen in the two months since they learned they would be running against each other.

“I’m very sorry about it,” McCain said in a Saturday interview at his Arlington headquarters. “I think we could have avoided at least some of this if we had agreed to do the town hall meetings” together, as he had suggested, during the summer months.

First, it’s interesting that McCain is “very sorry” about the tone of the campaign now, given that it was just one week ago when McCain told reporters, “I’m proud of the campaign that we have run. I’m proud of the issues that we have been trying to address with the American people.”

Second, the notion that the campaigns “could have avoided … some of this” if there’d been 15 debates instead of three doesn’t make any sense. It’s a classic non sequitur — whether McCain runs a relentlessly negative, substance-free campaign has nothing to do with his proposal for extra debates.

And yet, Broder really seems to think there’s something to this.

Continue reading »

Download | play   Download | play (h/t Heather)

Neocon Bill Kristol made his usual appearance as part of the "Power Panel" on Fox News Sunday this morning and was surprisingly supportive of Hillary Clinton. In a rather tongue-in-cheek fashion, Bill decries the misogyny that he says plagued the Democratic primaries, and that Republicans are much more open to a strong woman:

"...I think Hillary Clinton was gracious. She's put behind her the horrible sexism and misogyny the Democratic primary voters demonstrated, which I'm appalled by personally, never would have happened in the Republican Party. You know, we're - Republicans are much more open to strong women, and that's why John McCain's going to put Sara Palin , the Governor of Alaska on the ticket." 

How sweet of Bill to show such compassion for -- wait, wasn't it Bill who said this last February?

"Look the only people for Hillary Clinton are the Democratic establishment and white women… it would be crazy for the Democratic party to follow the establishment that’s led them to defeat year after year… White Women are a problem - but, you know… we all live with that…"

Yes, it sure was. Because we know there was zero sexism coming from the right during the primary season, right? There was nary a peep on FOXNews about Hillary losing male votes because her voice was shrill, or that her tears were just a political stunt, while male candidates of both parties getting choked up was just a sign of their passion, right?  Save it, Bill. Even in jest, it just makes you look petty.

We've followed David Brooks' hackery for some time now, but this one has to take the cake. It seems that Senator Barack Obama's decision to opt out of the public campaign finance system has awakened this sleeping wanker.

The New York Times:

God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.

But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.

Fast Eddie Obama? Oy. I wish I could tell you that Brooks' frothing, hit-piece got better, but, I can't.

I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside. Read on...

Ahh, the smell of feigned outrage.  And nothing about McCain at all?  Little David seems to be very angry -- and as Matthew Yglesias writes, you wouldn't like David when he's angry. 

   Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, Bush’s former chief speechwriter, has spent most of the year devoting his columns to bashing Barack Obama. Today, he mixes things up a bit by bashing a different Democrat he doesn’t like: Senate candidate Al Franken.

Consider his article in Playboy magazine titled “Porn-O-Rama!” in which he enthuses that it is an “exciting time for pornographers and for us, the consumers of pornography.” The Internet, he explains, is a “terrific learning tool. For example, a couple of years ago, when he was 12, my son used the Internet for a sixth-grade report on bestiality. Joe was able to download some effective visual aids, which the other students in his class just loved.” Franken goes on to relate a soft-core fantasy about women providing him with sex who were trained at the “Minnesota Institute of Titology.”

Orwell would be so proud.

“Porn-O-Rama!” is a modern campaign document every voter should read — the Federalist Papers of lifestyle liberalism. It has the literary sensibilities and moral seriousness of an awkward adolescent nerd publishing an underground newspaper to shock his way into campus popularity. But, in this case, the article was written in 2000 by a 48-year-old man.

Gerson goes on (and on), highlighting various excerpts from Franken’s satirical works, some of which are funny, and some of which aren’t. Gerson’s broader point, it seems, is that Franken has contributed to a coarsening of our culture — in the “cause of relevance and realism” — and it would be another setback to allow this coarsening to affect our “political discourse.”

Gerson insists politics “should not actively push our culture toward vulgarity and viciousness,” which, Gerson argues, “Sen. Franken” would do.

I’m all for a civil discourse, but I find Gerson’s complaining wildly off-base.

Continue reading »

Way back in 1995, the Washington Post's Ben Bradlee explained why he was uncomfortable with journalists getting big bucks on the  lecture circuit: "I wish it would go away. I don’t like it. I think it’s corrupting. If the Insurance Institute of America, if there is such a thing, pays you $10,000 to make a speech, don’t tell me you haven’t been corrupted. You can say you haven’t and you can say you will attack insurance issues in the same way, but you won’t. You can’t."

It's a shame David Broder wasn't paying attention.

[I]t’s surprising to see that Broder, who recently took a buyout but will continue to write his Post column, appears to be a regular presence these days on the business-lecture circuit and has even spoken to major health-care groups. [...]

Perhaps the groups to whom Broder spoke paid only for his expenses. Even if that’s true, he still appears to have—at minimum—been on the receiving end of some sweet junkets. And shouldn’t Broder disclose to the Post’s readers and the general public his moonlighting activities, especially when he writes about topics that overlap with his speaking gigs?

Ken Silverstein has all the details.

Following up on an item John posted over the weekend, the New York Times had quite a front-page scoop when it reported on a Pentagon program that recruited retired military officers, who’ve since become lobbyists or consultants for military contractors, to become propaganda agents of the Bush administration. Throughout the war in Iraq, these retired officers — or “message multipliers,” as they were described by internal Defense Department documents — took on roles as military analysts for all of the major news networks, without noting their puppet-like relationships with the Pentagon.

The controversy has become something of a scandal for the Defense Department (though the controversy would likely have been far more significant were it not for a near-media blackout), prompting officials to scrap the program, at least for now.

The Defense Department has temporarily stopped feeding information to retired military officers pending a review of the issue, said Robert Hastings, principal deputy assistant secretary of Defense for public affairs. [...]

Hastings said he is concerned about allegations that the Defense Department’s relationship with the retired military analysts was improper.

“Following the allegations, the story that is printed in the New York Times, I directed my staff to halt, to suspend the activities that may be ongoing with retired military analysts to give me time to review the situation,” Hastings said in an interview with Stripes on Friday.

Hastings, implicitly conceding an error, told reporters of his pending review, “We’ll take the time to do it right.”

As for the political angle of all of this, the estimable Ari Melber noted that the Clinton and Obama campaigns both criticized the administration for starting the program -- while the McCain campaign doesn't want to talk about it.

There’s probably little point to arguing that much of the political media establishment is embarrassingly in the tank for John McCain, but the Washington Post has been especially frustrating this week.

On Monday, for example, reporter Jonathan Weisman noted that McCain is faring well in national polls because he’s been “branded” an “independent maverick.” Suggesting that the reputation is deserved, Weisman mentioned, “[McCain] fought the GOP over tobacco in 1998″ — without noting that McCain shamelessly flip-flopped on the issue.

On Tuesday, Richard Cohen sought to dismiss McCain’s flip-flopping ways, calling him an “honorable man who has fudged and ducked and swallowed the truth on occasion,” which Cohen described as “understandable.” (He didn’t say why McCain’s mendacity is “understandable,” but simply granted absolution.)

And today, David Broder kept the streak going.

Yet, in pointing to those vulnerabilities in her rival, Clinton has heightened the most obvious liability she would carry into a fight against McCain. In an age of deep cynicism about politicians of both parties, McCain is the rare exception who is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest.

Broder didn’t say who makes this assumption about McCain’s integrity, which is odd, because I can think of all kinds of examples of McCain “sacrificing personal credibility to prevail” politically.

Perhaps Broder could take a look at that flip-flop list I put together. In nearly every instance, McCain abandoned a more moderate position for a far more conservative one, and in each case, it was a transparent effort to curry favor with the Republican Party’s far-right base in order to help him with the GOP presidential nomination.

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

Download | play Download | play

Transcript via HuffPo:

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

CROSSTALK: Ooh. Oh, Joe.

KLEIN: Okay. Well...

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

Yea. He went there.

The Huffington Post:

The annual Gridiron dinner occurred this past weekend in Washington D.C., and while the main focus was on the entertainment, here's a tidbit we were struck by in the Washington Post's "Reliable Source" column: Ann Coulter attended the event with Bob Novak -- as his date. The Prince and Princess of Darkness? Sounds like a match!

No word on whether the couple was espied holding hands, or gazing into each others' eyes, or making a mad dash for the backseat of a cab. So, you'll just have to use your imagination.

We don't have a category for Ewww, so I chose torture instead. Can you imagine the dinner conversation? A nightcap perhaps? Novakula and Coultergeist sittin' in a tree... *shudder*

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

On Tuesday's Countdown, Keith Olbermann talks to Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley about the Supreme Court's decision to not hear the ACLU vs. NSA case on warrantless wiretapping.

OLBERMANN: Why would evidence like this entire AT&T room in San Francisco—we know the number of the room, we know the guy who hooked it all up. Why is that not sufficient to at least move this lawsuit on?

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->

TURLEY: Well, that’s part of the ridiculous element to all this. That we know there’s an NSA program; we know that it’s illegal. There’s been no showing nor is no showing possible that the President had the authority to order what he did. This is a crime, defined under federal law. So there’s no mystery to the program, there’s not a particular debate to its illegality. The only issue is standing: the ability of someone to come in and say, “I can show I was individually harmed.” And they can’t do that because the Courts won’t give them the information they need and Congress will do nothing to force out into the public the information needed to get this type of relief. And as you noted, the Congress is going further in the opposite direction; they’re trying to extinguish suits against telecom companies that have been successful.

This is why it is so critical that you contact your representative and let them know to NOT support telecom immunity. Anything less is enabling a crime against the country and its citizens.  The Gavel has compiled some experts and editorials on the FISA law. 

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

The hardcore, right wing base of the Republican party, including one of its most prominent spokespersons, has been going berserk over the notion that Senator John McCain might become the GOP candidate for president. They've gone above and beyond trying to paint him as a liberal, which elicits laughter from actual liberals -- but apparently, it's catching on with some teevee bobbleheads.

This morning on The Chris Matthews Show, the panel discussed John McCain and how many Democrats and Independents would vote for him in the general election. Matthews puts up poll numbers showing McCain taking as many as 41% of Independent voters and 16% of Democrats. The same poll also shows him beating Hillary Clinton and losing to Barack Obama, both by slim margins and 7 out of 12 CMS contributors think McCain could hold those numbers all the way through the general election.

I was surprised, Joe Kline actually brings the most reality to this segment, reminding the panel that there are only a handful of Independents who think we should be in Iraq for 100 years and that if McCain thinks he can live off the narrow tactical successes of the surge (U.S. deaths in Iraq climbed in January) in Iraq and avoid talking about the economy throughout the entire campaign, he's in for trouble.

Democrats are consistently topping Republicans in both fundraising and voter turn out, so I find it hard to believe that the race would be anywhere this close. Having said that, it's a long way to November and anything can happen. We've learned not to place too much emphasis on polling data, so here's my question to C&L readers -- is this another case of our media trying to create a horse race where none exists, or does McCain, a war mongering, anti-choice, pandering, flip flopping Republican who has capitulated on torture, immigration and President Bush's tax cuts REALLY have a good shot at beating either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in November?

Two weeks ago, the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen devoted an entire column to criticizing Barack Obama over his use of a statistic — the senator claimed that more young African-American men are in prison than in college — that Cohen insists is false. The columnist used the disputed number, and nothing else, to accuse Obama of “mendacity” and failing to “give a damn” about the truth.

It was a spectacularly dumb column, and an unusually awkward attempt at accusing a presidential candidate of dishonesty. For one thing, Cohen’s piece included obvious errors of fact and judgment. For another, a closer look at the disputed statistic about young African-American men shows that Obama may very well have been correct.

Undeterred, Cohen goes after Obama again yesterday, with an even more ridiculous hit-job.

Barack Obama is a member of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama’s spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright’s daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said “truly epitomized greatness.” That man is Louis Farrakhan.

Maybe for Wright and some others, Farrakhan “epitomized greatness.” For most Americans, though, Farrakhan epitomizes racism, particularly in the form of anti-Semitism....

It’s important to state right off that nothing in Obama’s record suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views or agrees with Wright when it comes to Farrakhan. Instead, as Obama’s top campaign aide, David Axelrod, points out, Obama often has said that he and his minister sometimes disagree. Farrakhan, Axelrod told me, is one of those instances.

Fine. But where I differ with Axelrod and, I assume, Obama is that praise for an anti-Semitic demagogue is not a minor difference or an intrachurch issue.

I’ve read Cohen’s piece several times now, trying to understand what possessed him to write it (and what possessed his editors to publish it). I’m at a bit of a loss.

At first blush, there’s clearly a degrees-of-separation problem. Obama belongs to a Christian church. The church has a pastor. The pastor has a daughter. The daughter helps run the church magazine. The magazine featured some praise for Louis Farrakhan last year.

Cohen sees this and insists, in his nationally-syndicated column, that Obama has a personal “obligation to speak out” — not because Obama has been connected with Farrakhan or anti-Semitism in any way, but because his church’s pastor’s daughter’s magazine said something complementary about Farrakhan.

This is utterly ridiculous and Cohen ought to be embarrassed for putting his name on such nonsense.

Continue reading »