Must-Read Daily Howler

[Nine]

Must-read March 7 piece from one of the best sites on the Internet(s):

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

In today’s Post and Times columns, E. J. Dionne and David Brooks express a similar view of the Democratic campaign. “Clinton has shown she is willing to say anything about Obama to bring him down,” Dionne mournfully writes. But then, Brooks is on a similar wave length. Speaking of Obama, he says this: “When he was under assault in South Carolina, he rose above the barrage and made the Clintons look sleazy.” A bit later, he presents the boo-hooing, goo-goo view of recent events: In Texas and Ohio, “Clinton attacked , and the attacks worked.” Rachel Maddow couldn’t sob it out better.

We’ll probably examine this view of the race in more detail next week. But please note: Almost surely, this is not the way the Clinton campaign would describe these matters. Did Obama “rise above” in South Carolina? The Clinton campaign would most likely say that Obama, his campaign and his surrogates played the race card during that period, making a string of claims (some of which, to be honest, were completely absurd) which painted the Clintons as slobbering racists. Sean Wilentz doesn’t speak for the Clinton campaign, but his recent piece in The New Republic probably captures the Clinton camp’s general view of these matters.

Which campaign’s view of these matters is right? It’s always hard to sort out such matters. But quite commonly, the “press corps” adopts one view or another during the course of our White House campaigns. During the primary race in Campaign 2000, for example, the mainstream press corps’ brilliant savants widely adopted the story-lines being pushed by Bradley and McCain, their widely-beloved twin authentics. Result? Al Gore now holds the Nobel Peace Prize—but at the time, Dionne’s brilliant colleagues were reciting a mantra: Al Gore is willing to do and say anything! Dionne was too gutless to speak at the time—and this morning, he recites the same line, this time aimed at Clinton. “Clinton has shown she is willing to say anything about Obama,” the sage instructs. Alas! He kept his trap shut during Campaign 2000, speaks up unwisely today.

(snip)

“Clinton’s tough anti-media campaign!” Oh. Our. God. It can’t get dumber! If we could adapt an old talking-point: These babies will do and say anything! Has Clinton run a “tough anti-media campaign?” The statement is so foolish we barely know how to start. Eight years ago, Dionne—a Hardball regular—sat around saying nothing for twenty straight months, while his cohort savaged Gore, calling him every name in the book. Eight years later, he sat around saying nothing last year while major members of his cohort (sorry—of his social set) conducted a gender-based trashing of Clinton—a trashing which began to reach full flower on October 30. But readers, there’s one more bit of Hard Pundit Law ruling life inside Dionne’s Village: You aren’t allowed to criticize the brilliant mainstream press corps! (Unless you complain of their “liberal bias,” a complaint which is thoroughly kosher.) In recent weeks, Clinton has finally uttered a few modest peeps, saying things so baldly obvious that Saturday Night Live could even see what was happening. And here is E. J., crying real tears, discussing her “tough” campaign!


Wish I could post more than 4 paragraphs.

[Nine]

1. and another good recent one (March 6)

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh030608.shtml

[DemBones DemBones]

2. I was going to post that one the other day. Sadly, the Obamans

won't look at any evidence of the media bias against Clinton and for
Obama, much less ask themselves what it means.

It means, of course, that the media are under orders from management
to get Obama the nomination and then tear him apart while having an ephiphany over that straight-shooter John McCain.

Result: President McCain.