They're political southpaws. They live and work in a state represented by Hillbot, er, agent of change.
*I wish I could meet this change person (or thing), so I could ask him (or her) straight (or gay, or transneutral) out: Who (or whom) is your true agent, 'cause a lot of people are passing out your business cards?
Anyway, back to my vendetta: Have you ever wondered why NY Times editorial writers continue to blast Madame Nixon (welcome aboard, Bob Herbert)? Is Maureen Dowd a self-loathing sexist? Is Frank Rich blindly regurgitating Karl Rove's talking points? Could it be they're simply astute observers who recognize a conniving charlatan when they see one?
This clip reveals plenty about Hillbot, though I'm sure her supporters will view it as a decisive rebuke against yet another angry white male.
Sorry, but Chris Matthews was right: "Let’s not forget, and I’ll be brutal, the reason she’s a US Senator, the reason she’s a candidate for President, the reason she may be a front runner, is that her husband messed around."
It's not like she had (or has) a record of achievement. Despite her audacious claims. Hillary didn't singlehandedly deliver justice for all.
Finally, wouldn't you prefer a candidate who'd reject -- not promulgate -- racist AND patronizingly sexist stereotypes? Obama's a fairy tale, MLK was all talk, those genetically inferior men are bullying me ... isn't it about time the Clintons completed that bridge to the 21st Century?
Unctuous lib Keith Olbermann (the same guy who said Fox News is "worse than Al Qaeda") played to his Netroots base Tuesday night on MSNBC, repeatedly pointing out that Obama would have only beaten Clinton by one percent if not for the 20 percent of independent voters who caucused with the Democrats. Olbermann and his ilk work hard to discredit the majority middle, but in this election they (we) will be heard. The bitter fringes -- left and right -- best prepare for irrelevance, however temporary.
Amid all the sophomoric claims of relevance, one wonders if the old media and new media will ever get along?
(originally posted 6/5/2007)
Consistent throughout the verbal jarring over Andy's article has been a virulent dose of self-importance from the "new media" types.
As one wrote to Andy, "Keep fiddling, Nero!"
I guess that's fair, since many in the "old media" retain a condescending tone whenever addressing bloggers (i.e. losers who live at home with their parents).
Both sides are way off. The new media is here to stay, and they can be influential -- just not as influential as most of them think. Not yet, anyway.
As for us dinosaurs ... we're far from extinct, and don't count on that happening anytime soon. There's something to be said for professionalism and craft. I've been an ink-stained wretch for nearly 20 years, and that experience counts for something. I know more about reporting a story than someone who started a blog two years ago. Sorry if that reeks of old media snobbery.
Although there are some blogs that feature dogged journalism, most are opinion-driven, which is fine. There's a place for that. A small minority of bloggers are real reporters, and they're uncovering plenty. More power to them. But building a brand that can be trusted takes time. ...
Of course there's plenty to criticize about the old media. They are slow to react, and the changes they are instituting veer to the trivial. I'm a vocal critic of our industry, as are many of my co-workers. It's in serious trouble, due in large part to the rudderless leadership of the conglomerates in control -- not because blogs have become the preferred source of information for big stories.
Think about it: terrorists strike Atlanta tomorrow. Where are you going to turn for information?
Judith Regan, the former book publisher, says in a lawsuit filed yesterday protesting her dismissal by the News Corporation, the media conglomerate, that a senior executive there encouraged her to lie to federal investigators about her past affair with Bernard B. Kerik after he had been nominated to become homeland security secretary in late 2004.
The lawsuit asserts that the News Corporation executive wanted to protect the presidential aspirations of Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Kerik’s mentor, who had appointed him New York City police commissioner and had recommended him for the federal post.
If you ever watch Fox News Channel (good blog fodder), then you know Regan's allegations aren't without merit. And what explains Christian conservative Sean Hannity's enthusiastic support for Rudy?
Hilariously enough, some other big names on the right, typified by Sean Hannity of Fox News, are capitulating to the Giuliani candidacy by pretending that he, like the incessantly flip-flopping Mitt Romney, is reversing his previously liberal record on social issues. The straw they cling to is Rudy’s promise to appoint “strict constructionist” judges to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, Pat Robertson, who recently endorsed Rudy, has been in business with Rupert Murdoch's media empire for years.
Coincidence? Maybe, but as "Deep Throat" told Woodward and Bernstein, "Follow the money."
I didn't intend for the Malcontent to become a clearinghouse of anti-Hillbot sentiment, but the arrogance of her campaign can't be ignored.
The latest bit of unmitigated gall comes via her new BFF, Matt Drudge (italics added):
CNN's Wolf Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday's Dem debate on Hillary. 'This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,' top Clinton insider explains. 'Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull 'a Russert.'' Blitzer is set to moderate debate from Vegas, with questions also being posed by Suzanne Malveaux ...
Maybe they can slip Blitzer some softball questions -- oh wait, they've stopped doing that.
It'll be interesting to see if Blitzer will be bullied by Hillbot's sycophants. Hopefully he doesn't have any skeletons in his closet -- the Clintons wouldn't hesitate to expose them.
As unconvincing as the public apology that seeks forgiveness for possibly offending someone (without assuming personal responsibility), Bill O'Reilly is claiming his comments about Sylvia's Restaurant were "taken out of context" by "left-wing smear merchants."
You won't find me defending Media Matters, the so-called watchdogs who first reported O'Reilly's remarks. They have a partisan agenda, as does their conservative counterpart, the Media Research Center. Media Matters would love to silence O'Reilly, but that doesn't absolve his ignorance.
Especially when it's on audio -- pretty hard to take that out of context. His critics didn't even report the entirety of O'Reilly's patronizing comments that afternoon (he praised the black people who dressed "appropriately" for an Anita Baker concert he recently attended; seems he expected them all to be wearing velour jumpsuits with Jheri curl stains on the shoulders).
O'Reilly loves playing the victim, though he derides that pervasive American mentality on air. Of course we're talking about a self-proclaimed "cultural warrior" just three years removed from settling (for millons) a sexual harassment suit filed by a former producer. Remember the loofah?
Regardless, he maintains a fervent fan base, deflecting scandal with the skill of a Clinton. Like the Clintons, he alleges conspiracy whenever challenged. Left, right or center, it's a dishonest formula that works, as long as you're a gifted spinner.