The 10 Worst Media Moments Of 2008

OK, now that we’ve celebrated all the good things that media professionals managed to grace our world with this year, let’s skip ahead to a listicle of lowlights, which is probably what you all really want anyway, since everyone runs on schadenfreude these days and is filled with impotent rage!

Anyway, as before, many of you will agree and many will disagree, and that’s cool! Please do! Especially if you want to comment or send an email about it! But note that I’ve left off a lot of examples that many of you will no doubt feel are obligatory inclusions. For instance, I can already predict an email complaining that Bill O’Reilly doesn’t make this list. It seems to me that some examples of stupidity are far too ubiquitous to be remarkable. Nevertheless, the comments are there for all of you to cherish the moments I missed.

TEN THINGS THAT SUCKED OUT LOUD IN 2008, MEDIA EDITION

1. The Economy Kills Everyone
Some greet the effects of the down economy on the media with mockery, some with mournfulness, some with a combination of the two I shall call mournckery. Eventually though, a writer you admire gets laid off, or a reporter you’ve depended on has to take a buyout, or RADAR Magazine folds and their fantastic web operation comes under the rule of a bunch of gibbering twits with birdcrap for brains and it all hits home. And look, everyone knows that the web is going to solve all of the world’s problems, but tell me: how does the imminent failure of, say, New Jersey’s Star-Ledger grab you? Worried about that at all? Of course not! Everyone knows that the State of New Jersey is filled with affluent laptop/iPhone owners and their politicians are the most honest people in the ever-loving world!

2. ABC’s Terrible Debate
Political debates are all alike; every terrible debate is terrible in its own way. And yet the ridiculous attempt by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson nevertheless ranks as the supreme example of incompetence. It didn’t matter that every single one of their gotcha questions, save Gibson’s high-toned bitchery over his investment portfolio, had already been asked 4,751 times: George and Charlie were bound and determined to be the 4,752nd to do so! As such, the entire debate played like something ABC News took all of fifteen minutes to prepare for, right down to the tatty production values and asinine, utterly tone-deaf references to the Constitution. The resulting debate wasn’t fair to either candidate and was an insult to every viewer who tuned in. “The crowd’s turning on me,” Gibson quipped, after it was over. Would they had done so earlier!

Oh, and did Stephanopoulos hypocritically engage in the sort of behavior that he once decried as a political operative? OF COURSE HE DID.

On the bright side, this happened.

3. The Day of Lipstick On A Pig
I don’t think a single event managed to sum up the media’s inability to distinguish activity from achievement, their willingness to delve deeply into irrelevant minutiae, or their tendency to obsess themselves with transparently stupid meta-narratives any better than they day we all woke up to discover that the commonly used phrase “lipstick on a pig” had become transformed into some sort of sexist insult. It was a sickening and foul display - media professionals on all networks and platforms hurling this loafer of high-toned nonsense at our heads. Naturally, the very premise of their argument was unremittingly false, and the resulting blockstop coverage and commentary was nothing more than widespread platform abuse. Then, as soon as this zombie contagion struck the media, it was gone, and no one ever talked about it again. NEVER FORGET THAT ADULTS - ACTUAL GROWN-UPS! - PERPETRATED THIS NONSENSE.

4. NYT’s Vicki Iseman story
Speaking of platform abuse, how is it that we all know that the New York Times knew full well that their John McCain-Vicki Iseman story was a stinkfest on arrival? For me, it was the way the shuffled it out online during evening rush-hour, as if they wanted viewers to be moving in the opposite direction of their journalistic turd when it fell to earth. The story may have had some viability, but whatever truth there was in McCain’s interactions with Washington lobbyists came sandwiched between sensationalistic and salacious intimations of sexual infidelities between John McCain and a lobbyist named Vicki Iseman. You had to love the way the Times worked their drizzle of sizzle up into the lede and then spent three pages avoiding the matter before veering back to it. The Iseman part of the saga is supported by precisely one on-the-record source, former McCain confidant and adviser John Weaver. In my opinion, Weaver’s quotes are, uhm…woven to make it look like he is confirming the Iseman-McCain relationship. Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt faulted the paper as well, saying, “The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story, in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics — sex — it offered readers no proof that McCain and Iseman had a romance.”

5. Endless Talk of the “Gender Card”
Everyone talked about how sexist the media was this year, and everyone had their own idea as to where this sexism was most glaringly revealed. I’ll tell you what set my teeth on edge: every time someone made mention of Hillary Clinton playing the “gender card.”

Let me get this straight. It’s okay for Barack Obama to put his racial background to advantageous use. It’s okay for John McCain to put his war-hero past to advantageous use. It’s okay for John Edwards to put his Son-of-a-mill-worker-hood to advantageous use. It’s okay for Rudy Guiliani to put his proximity to the September 11th attacks to advantageous use. But if Hillary Clinton attempts to leverage her femininity to her advantage, suddenly everyone has to debate the relative fairness of it? Is American politics a milieu in which the participants often forego their natural advantages in competition, out of a spirit of fairness? No? Then suggesting Hillary Clinton be tied to a different set of standards is horseshit, the end.

6. Thrill Up The Leg
The sad curse of immortality is that it is often our moments of folly that end up outliving us. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews will come to understand this in time. While covering the 2008 “Potomac Primary,” Matthews enthused that Barack Obama’s oratory caused a physiological reaction, specifically:

I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.

Matthews thus became a symbol for everyone who has ever complained, or will complain, about “Obama adulation” in the media. In all likelihood, Matthews will never live this down. Not ever.

7. 32 Important Words The Media Missed
Back when Henry Paulson wrote up the proposed $700 billion bailout package, it contained this part called “Section 8,” whose thirty-two words basically precluded any or all efforts to hold anyone involved in the disbursement of these monies accountable:

“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

The mainstream media totally missed this. Today, they are all yelling at banks, wondering what happened to all the money. It’s quite pathetic, really.

8. Message Force Multipliers
On April 20th, David Barstow of the New York Times told the incredibly true story of how the Pentagon unleashed a platoon of administration shills with extensive conflicts of interest upon the television media, presented as neutral “miltary analysts,” to serve as a “Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance.” The complacent/complicit networks did little to shoulder the responsibility of their failure to vet and/or disclose to the public the true affiliations of these P.R. agents. But hey, were it not for Barstow himself, following up on the matter months later, it’s not like the New York Times took all that active an interest in their own story. So, yes, America: you are entitled to your cynicism!

9. NYT Mission Accomplished Panel
In May, the New York Times commemorated the anniversary of the “Mission Accomplished” banner by hosting a symposium from celebrated thinkers, most of whom were well-known as people who got the Iraq War wrong. They were allowed, in that symposium, to continue to get the Iraq War wrong. Mission accomplished!

10 (tie). Charlotte Allen/Bill Kristol
How do you prefer your op-ed idiocy America? Rendered in a thousand cuts from Bill Kristol, phoning in his obligation to the New York Times? Or delivered in one sharp, shock-and-awesome example of stupidity, a la Charlotte Allen in the Washington Post?

_____________

As for (dis)honorable mentions, where do begin and end? CNN capped off their year of election overkill with their infinitely mockable “holograms,” which will now stand in for the human talent they’ve been shedding. Portfolio inexplicably put American Apparel’s Dov Charney on their cover at a time when everyone else was chronicling the economic catastrophe. Amy Chozick wrote an idiotic piece for the Wall Street Journal about whether Obama was “too fit” to be President - some of her “sources” were anonymous message-board denizens who she prodded into participating. Barbara West went after Joe Biden with every GOP talking point she could stuff into her head, and later claimed that zeroed the balance. And MSNBC’s The Race For The White House was the dumbest political show ever conceived by sentient beings.

Read more: Video, 2008, Media Criticism, Media News

Bob Burnett: 2008: The Best and Worst

In a tumultuous year, ten political events stood out.

The Worst
5. “Just say no.” Republican Senators Block Critical Legislation: The 110th Congress saw Republican Senators invoke cloture motions - to limit debate and head off filibusters - a record 138 times, more than double the previous ignominious standard. The do-nothing GOP killed legislation with broad support - bills that had already passed in the House of Representatives - including renewable energy tax credits, a windfall profits tax on oil companies, negotiations with drug companies over Medicare drug prices, DC voting rights, and withdrawal from Iraq. As a result Republicans lost eight Senate seats in the general election.

4. “Gimme the money.” Paulson Demands $700 Billion Bailout Blank Check: On September 18th, in a one-page memo to Congress, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson proposed the Troubled Asset Relief Program, demanding $700 billion to purchase mortgage-backed securities, as well as unlimited discretion spending the funds. Congress modified his proposal to release funds in stages and provide oversight. Nonetheless, many believe the TARP program has been a waste of tax-payer funds.

3. “Running on empty.” McCain Suspends Campaign: While the conventional wisdom claims John McCain lost the presidential election because of the economy, he failed because he ran a terrible campaign, consistently making bad decisions. In early September, at the end of the Republican convention, McCain was surging: his selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate had galvanized the Republican base and some national polls showed him ahead of Obama. Then came the Paulson’s TARP proposal, which many Republicans refused to support. McCain “suspended” his campaign to return to Washington and broker a deal. And then did nothing. Instead of being viewed as a strong leader, McCain was revealed as confused and erratic.

2. “He’s a terrorist.” Palin Accuses Obama of Being a Terrorist: On October 4th, Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin accused Obama of “palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.” This charge, repeated by McCain, prompted shouted death threats at Republican rallies and the waving of pitchforks. While most Americans - and the Secret Service - saw the terrorist charge as contemptible and incendiary, Palin and McCain persisted for more than a week.

1. “I’m the decider.”Economy Slides into Recession, Bush Does Nothing: For the first six months, President Bush pronounced the American economy “sound” and spurned calls for action. In mid September, Bush reversed course declaring the US was on the brink of economic collapse. On December 1st, economists announced what most Americans had known already, the economy had been in recession since December of 2007. First Bush lied and then he panicked.

The Best
5. “No McCain.” Clinton Endorses Obama: After a sometimes bitter campaign, where Hillary Clinton continued her candidacy long after most observers had written her off, Democrats worried the New York Senator might offer only a half-hearted endorsement of Barack Obama. On August 26th, speaking at the Democratic Convention, Clinton strongly supported Obama giving one of the most memorable speeches of her career.

4. “I can see Russia from my house.”Tina Fey Mimics Sarah Palin: In 2008 Saturday Night Live reinvented itself as a bastion of political comedy. Tina Fey’s dead on imitation of Palin mocked Alaska’s Governor as a vapid airhead totally unprepared for the vice-presidency.

3. “Respect, Empower, Include.” Obama’s Field Organization From the Iowa caucuses on January 3rd to the twenty-five-state get-out-the-vote effort on November 4th, Barack Obama put together the most impressive field organization ever seen in U.S. politics. First, Obamacons took down Hillary Clinton, the prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic nomination. Then they defeated John McCain, despite his despicable attempt to label Obama a terrorist and closet Muslim. On Election Day, Obama won the critical swing states because he had a ground game and McCain didn’t. American politics will never be the same.

2. “This is a goodbye kiss, you dog.” Bush insulted by Iraqi journalist: In a vain effort to resurrect his reputation, George Bush took a December “victory” tour of Iraq. In the middle of a Baghdad press conference, where he touted the “success” of his strategy, Bush was the target of two shoes thrown by Iraqi journalist Muntathar al Zaidi, who cursed him in Arabic. The incident symbolized Bush’s Iraq legacy.

1. “Yes we can.”Obama wins Presidency: When was the point you knew Barack was going to be America’s 44th President? Was it after his Iowa victory? Or when it became clear he had out-organized Hillary? Was it his speech on race? Or when we knew Obama was going to win all the debates because of his thoughtful, unflappable demeanor? Or did you bite your nails until the evening of November 4th, expecting something awful to happen that would snatch victory from his grasp? However you experienced the campaign, Barack Obama Obama’s candidacy was an once-in-a-lifetime political thrill; capped by his dazzling victory speech on November 4th. We can and we did.

Yvonne R. Davis: Senator Coleman, Give Yourself Two Christmas Presents - Acceptance & Peace

Dear Senator Coleman,

Despite what happens to you during this most contentious war for the U.S. Senate Seat in Minnesota, I want to wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

I am writing you from Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. I am away from my family, friends and the snow in Connecticut, but I plan to spend a very beautiful, warm and relaxing holiday in Zanzibar. While I am taking the ferry over later today to spend the night, I plan to review my life in 2008. I will look at all of the incredibly smart things I have said and done to win with others and myself, but also the stupid decisions and mistakes I have made that have cost me. Mostly I’ll ponder about how to peacefully reconcile my present with my future.

Sir, I want to know if you would kindly consider giving yourself two Christmas presents this year - 1. Acceptance of what is meant to be wrapped in a big white bow and 2. Peace of Mind dressed in gold wrapping paper with yellow ribbons.

During President George W. Bush’s first term, I remember seeing you at the White House a number of times. I did not know who you were, but I knew you were with Bush because he always acknowledged you and you always spoke to him after the events. Like the other power guys in the room, you were one of the first ones to talk to him. Afterwords, there was always this big laugh at something the president usually said. I know it sounds odd that someone observed you so carefully, but it should not come to you as a surprise since the people of Minnesota have watched you more closely. Since that time, your relationship with the White House changed dramatically. You critiqued the president’s handling of the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina. At this point, it does not even matter what your status with Bush is. He’s leaving and you are trying to hang on to power by nearly any means necessary.

Now, after the most historic presidential election of Barack Obama, it is Christmas and Hanukah Season, and you still don’t know if you won or not. The State Supreme Court shot down your most recent campaign lawsuit that sought to block the course of the recount due to concerns that some ballots had been counted twice.

I can only imagine how terribly painful it must be to fight so hard to win. Sleepless nights and early morning rises are probably most difficult. I have noticed the signs of aging on your face due to the stress of trying to prove you deserve this Senate seat. I am sure you talk endlessly with your loved ones, campaign staff, friends and anyone who will really lend a listening ear why this nightmarish election against inexperienced comedian like Al Franken is so laughable. It must be difficult to think that perhaps the ultimate shaggy dog story might be on you for losing this seat to someone who either might become a great junior Senator or a big joke like your former Governor Jesse Ventura.

Then again, you might win and then have a national press conference with your family by your side. You may have the opportunity to show that great smile of yours once again, and thank the people of Minnesota for their patience and understanding over this bitter and oh so ugly battle. In as much as this could happen, will you still have peace of mind if you win? Will you still feel like you won with the dignity and pride of winning a seat to serve Minnesotans?

If you lose, can you be like your colleague Senator John McCain and rise out of the ashes like he did? Can you find that place in your heart that leads you to an even greater purpose for your future once you figured what really happened? Are there lessons you can teach others about the true agony of defeat? Please don’t be upset by my questions. These questions can be applied to any leader at any given time.

I am comforted to know that you stated that life goes on should you lose. I just only hope it was more than just words. I am not advocating that you give up or thrown in the towel, but whatever the outcome, I hope you can look into the eyes of the people of Minnesota with reconciliation and a new self awareness.

Obama Media Strategy Insight: Ignore The Page , Politico

So, the paragraph that everyone’s dining out on from this weekend’s coming New York Times Magazine profile of President-elect Obama’s communications guru Robert Gibbs appears to be this one:

The paradox of this scene was that the Obama campaign’s communications strategy was predicated in part on an aggressive indifference to this insider set. Staff members were encouraged to ignore new Web sites like The Page, written by Time’s Mark Halperin, and Politico, both of which had gained instant cachet among the Washington smarty-pants set. “If Politico and Halperin say we’re winning, we’re losing,” Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, would repeat mantralike around headquarters.

Now, look. I think you’re really kidding yourself if you think the Obama campaign straight-up ignored the Politico. I’m quite sure they were dutifully fed the Obama camp’s talking points on a regular basis. Nevertheless, the statement “If Politico and Halperin say we’re winning, we’re losing” is not entirely hyperbolic.

Some examples? Roger Simon’s repeated, dubious defenses of Sarah Palin’s debate performances come to mind as precisely the sort of content that caused the Obama campaign precisely zero concern. Simon penned a addlepated valentine to Palin’s debating that basically boiled down to: “By not soiling herself onstage, Palin was the big winner.” He followed it up with similarly goopy, out-of-the-loop defenses on TV, such as this exchange with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Here she is, Governor Palin, on the office of the vice presidency. Here she is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. SARAH PALIN (R-AK), VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that’s not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I’m thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president’s policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: OK. I want to know what you both think about what 00 I mean, I thought for a moment I was hearing “precious bodily fluids” there.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: All of a sudden, a candidate — a candidate for president — vice president of the United States is talking about a new expansive role for the vice presidency in presiding over the Senate.

Roger, you have been defending her performance tonight. Explain what she is up to here.

SIMON: You know, that was like the 86th minute of the debate or something.

MATTHEWS: Yes. I was paying attention.

SIMON: Yes. Was America?

Ha ha. As it turns out, America was paying attention, silly goose! The debate had been billed as THE geek show of the political season, after all! Polls conducted by CBS and CNN after the debate declared Biden the decisive, double-digit winner, and, at her next opportunity, comedienne Tina Fey leveled Palin’s performance by putting all the things that Simon missed in his analysis (especially Palin’s strategy of answering questions with answers that did not in any way relate to the question) on high-contrast display. Americans paid attention to that, too! What Americans managed to reject in large numbers was the notion that Palin’s debate performance elevated her, or her ticket, in any meaningful way.

Of course, that the Obama camp ignored “The Page” makes even more sense, because The Page is just an incoherently written website geared towards tricking people into making as many ad-revenue-generating clicks as possible. But, specific to the matter of “if they say we’re winning, we’re losing,” I recall noting a well-documented example of this phenomenon. In a week where John McCain said multiple conflicting things on the state of the economy, got slagged by a slew of prominent conservatives for selecting Palin, complained about the rough treatment he received on The View, had one surrogate banished for suggesting that he lacked the acumen to run a corporation, had another surrogate make a perplexing statement about how the candidate had invented the Blackberry, and topped it all off by picking a bizarre fight with Spain, Mark Halperin declared in the biggest and most colorful fonts he could muster that “McCain Wins The Week.”

So, yeah. I’d totally put The Page on fade, too. And now that the election is over, I’d wager that most people are following this aspect of Robert Gibbs’ media strategy.

Read more: Politics News, Obama New Media Sites, Gibbs New Media Site, New York Times Magazine, Gibbs Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs Obama, Robert Gibbs Debate, Gibbs Nyt Magazine, Robert Gibbs, Obama Message, Barack Obama, Gibbs Political Message, Media News

Connecticut Democrats backing off Lieberman censure resolution.

Last September, the Connecticut Democratic Party central committee agreed on a resolution censuring Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) for his vigorous support of John McCain and for speaking at the Republican National Convention. But after Lieberman escaped rebuke in the U.S. Senate, it appears now that the “anger is draining“:

“We’re in the process of updating the resolution to be more reflective of the current time and situation,” said Audrey Blondin of Litchfield, one of two committee members who proposed the censure. Words like “censure” are certain to disappear. So is any suggestion that Lieberman end his affiliation as a registered Democratic voter in Connecticut. Instead?

“An expression of disappointment, an expression of disapproval,” Blondin said. “And let it go at that.”

TV SoundOff: Sunday Talking Heads

Good morning and welcome to your Sunday morning liveblog of the political shows you’ll be sleeping through this morning. And what a special morning it may end up being for us! See, last night I rekindled something that had been lost during the election year. Namely, a social life! That thing where you have friends and you do things like talk in person and drink things together, and you are PEOPLE standing in the SAME ROOM and it’s DIFFERENT from maintaining all of your relationships over IM and Facebook. That thing! And it was great! Here’s what makes today interesting: I realize that whilst out enjoying myself, I forgot to buy coffee filters. So I have no coffee for the first part of this live blog. So, yeah. Facing Fox News Sunday in a raw state of of semi-sleepiness, innocent dreams from the night before still half-remembered? This is going to hurt.

Anyway, NEW MEET THE PRESS TODAY! Can you feel the excitement? If you can, why? It’s not that exciting! Consult WebMD why not? You MAY actually be having a stroke! As always, leave a comment, send an email, peace on earth, goodwill toward men.

FOX NEWS SUNDAY

Once again, we’ll have Dixie versus Detroit auto bailout “debate,” lots of Blago, and a special panel time where these twerps wonder whether OBAMA IS TAINTED BY CHICAGO MACHINE STYLE BLAGOJEVICHERY!

Also! President Bush made a surprise visit to Iraq! He still does those things?

Anyway, yes. Bob Corker wants the Big Three to start paying their employees less. Because WOO CHRISTMAS TIME IN RECESSIONLAND! Let’s drop WAGES. The unions agreed to do so in 2011, but the Corkers of the world wanted it by 2009. “Had the unions just agreed to this by 2009, the bill would have passed.” ALL THEIR FAULT. Of course, the big reason Corker wants Detroit to bring their wages down by next year is because automakers in his district will get to drop theirs just as quickly anyway. Anyway, I’m not fond of the bailout. But you know what I’m even less fond of? DISINGENUOUS PEOPLE.

Oh, and really. What’s Debbie Stabenow going to say about all these things? Why can’t we talk to a lawmaker who doesn’t have a constituency with mad skin in the game, to put it into some sort of neutral perspective, if such a thing is possible.

Corker: “We had everything worked out except for one thing!” And that thing? YAHHH UNION GHOULS! But the thing is, THAT WAS WORKED OUT TOO! In advance! The unions were prepared to make those concessions as stakeholders by 2011!

Stabenow: “This is not the time for a political agenda!” This is a phrase that’s only ever said by people desperately trying to assert a political agenda, or who have been run roughshod by one and who lack anything else to say about it.

Oh well! They’re just going to give the auto companies money and they’re just going to ask for more. Corker’s wrong to suggest that we were at some sort of Historical Crossroads where this whole matter would have been solved. “We tried to get the UAW to agree to a finite date!” Translation: “And when they did agree to a finite date, we tried to get them to agree to a new one!”

Oh, well, people. Drive SmartCars, take mass transit, save your own damn money.

And now! How to Solve a Problem Like Blagojevich? Very few things rhyme with Blagojevich! If you haven’t enjoyed it yet, please to enjoy Spencer Ackerman’s effort to find everything that does:

Anyway, thanks to Blago, there may not be a Senator from Illinois to replace Obama until APRIL. And Blago will decide if it’s THAT rapid, unless they can find some way to pry him out of his seat.

Demi Moore is totally playing Lisa Madigan in the movie of this scandal, which will be titled: CAN I HAVE SOME MORE OF THAT MONEY, A%%HOLE? THE ROD BLAGOJEVICH STORY.

What did Rahm Emanuel know about and when? He totally talked up preferences for Obama’s replacement, and they were caught on tape! Isn’t that embarassing? That Emanuel may have had a conversation, or walked the streets of the same city? No one on Chris Wallace’s panel seems to think so, though he keeps prodding and prodding and using different synonyms. “So you don’t think it’s potentially damaging? Or embarrassing? A matter of much chagrin? Egg on the Obama team’s face? Caught with their pants down? In a tough spot? Where there’s smoke there’s fire? I guess what I’m trying to say is: WILLIAM AYERS.”

The panel discussion today: WILL OBAMA BE TAINTED? I wish they’f use the headline from that awesomely horrible TIME story: “Can Obama Escape Blagojevich’s Taint?” That put great images in my head! Blago transformed into a rampaging taint…like the Godzilla of taints…blasting Chicago with Taint-Rays. “OH MY GOD! The hair! It’s growing everywhere! Raw like kudzu! Thick as pubes! Can anyone stop THAT BLAGOTAINT?”

Anyway, what to the tired bored people say about it? Wallace says Obama reacted like a “traditional politician!” And he hasn’t released the sort of information to the public that would probably be better rendered unto Patrick Fitzgerald. Hume says, basically, that Obama’s in no rush to hastily bring a bunch of facts forward because the evidence suggests he’s got nothing to do with it, and that his nature is cautiousness, so he’s being cautious.

But has the BLOOM been cleft from the rose, Wallace wonders? Liasson says, maybe a little, “But if this is as bad as it gets, this is pretty good.” William Kristol says that the scandal is pleasingly old-fashioned because it has no sex - and I’m like: “WAIT. WAIT NOW. Bill Kristol. Really. Are you so lazy that you’ve got to plagiarize Kathryn Jean Lopez for your opening thoughts on this matter? THAT IS SAD. Really.”

Juan Williams apparently thought of Jesse Jackson Jr., as being apart from patronage networks, and really, a new-style black leader in the style of Obama and Deval Patrick. And that’s the highlight from thei week’s edition of “Juan Williams Is Totally Effing Kidding Himself!”

Wallace “nationalizes” this issue by pointing out that the the Democrats can be fitted with the corruption accusation now. It’s a good point, up to a point. Dollar Bill Jefferson is gone from office. Blago seemed to have been widely shunned. Rangel is comically, absurdly corrupt, but it’s going to take something more nuclear to pry him from his seat. Liasson says there isn’t the same critical mass that Republican scandals had - no wide, institutionalized participation in organized grift, salted with sex scandals. But give this new Congress a chance!

For the record: my wife did suggest I use a paper towel to brew my coffee. This sort of sounds like the kind of thing that I mess up really bad!

Bill Kristol sighs heavily and opines: “I don’t think it’s very smart for a bunch of Southern Republicans to decide that the future of the Republican party is to beat up working class union members in states like Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio.” Spoken like someone who was happy with Southern Republicans saying and doing whatever they wanted until you lost all three of those states.

“Every lobbyist in town is after that money!” Williams yells. Where were you, Juan, when the lobbyists for CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS (as opposed to, you know, CARS) were carting off billions?

So many commercials for Flomax during this show? Does Fox News Sunday give people weak streams? I thought it was just me, and I thought it was all political television shows.

Wow. Next weekend I have to wake up to DICK CHENEY? If anyone has any suggestions on how to approach that, and keep my mind and soul together, I’d like to hear about it.

Dick Cheney at 8am on Sunday. Wow. That is going to hurt!

FACE THE NATION

All right. Even though I do not trust the supremely cheap paper towels to make coffee with, I remembered something during the break: I have a coffee press! All is well.

Meanwhile, here’s Lisa Madigan, talking Blago. “We have a governor who cannot legitimately govern,” she says, explaining her decisions. Her office has been providing assistance and information to Fitzgerald, she says. Does she know about anything about Obama’s involvement? Just what she’s read in the papers, apparently.

Schieffer, bless his heart, asks straight up whether Madigan’s point here is basically: Blago is crazy. Madigan, obviously, won’t stipulate to that. But: “No one in their right mind would accept an appointment to his seat.” So, she’s on board with a special election. Madigan, by the way, is an EXTREMELY. INTENSE. WOMAN. I don’t think she blinked during that entire exchange.

Auto bailout time! Bob Corker is back, this time facing off against Carl Levin and Sherrod Brown. Schieffer relates how the White House is going to bigfoot the Senate. Corker goes into his painstaking explanation of the bankruptcy-without-bankruptcy plan. On the unions: “We did not ask for pay cuts by 2009, we asked that they become competitive.” Of course, the only way to make them “competitive” by 2009 is to make pay cuts two years earlier than everyone agreed.

Levin says that the White House is going to come through and save the auto industry. Levin praises Corker for his brave use of jargon, which I hope isn’t serious, considering Corker’s opinion isn’t structurally distinct from the votes that scuttled the deal. Levin makes a good point, though, suggesting that perhaps Congress should not be stipulating auto-industry wages by law. Aren’t higher wages the sort of thing that makes a job more competitive?

I’ll buy that the UAW probably had an ace in the hole where TARP and a legacy-obsessed lame duck president was concerned - this is why you don’t give huge handouts to people like AIG.

Michael Eric Dyson is on now, saying that (I guess an upside to?) the Blago scandal will help to contrast Obama’s style of governance to the way the Blagos of the world work. That wasn’t the Obama-Blago answer Schieffer wanted, depressingly, who then asks, “WHAT IF…” it turns out Obama or Emanuel had done all this wrongdoing? It raises questions: “What if it turns out that Bob Schieffer killed and ate Caylee Anthony’s baby?” Would that be bad? What if it turns out that Bob Schieffer’s legendary acuity comes to him though the still warm-and-beating hearts of his neighbors’ pets? What if he filters his morning coffee through a skein of orphan babies?

MEET THE PRESS

“Our issues this Sunday…” OMG, David Gregory. David. Listen. I’m going to need you to calm down, okay? I had no idea your voice GOT so thin, and reedy. Okay: yes. It’s your first show. And it’s really exciting because OH NOES BLAGOES! But I need you to chill, baby, because Mitt Romney, fraud spitting robot-ninny is going to be on and YOU SIMPLY MUST PWN HIM TO WIN YOUR FIRST MEET THE PRESS.

Okay, David Gregory? Anyway, Lisa Madigan, Pat Quinn, and Obama Taint today! Plus Granholm versus Romney. And dorky CEOs! Menaces all!

Lisa Madigan, our Avenging Angel of Justice Meted Out with Brisk Intensity and an Unblinking Eye, Who Tina Fey Shall Also Play, on Saturday Night Live, holds out the hope that Blago will Do The Right Thing (as per Mike Huckabee/Spike Lee) and resign of his own accord on Monday, to spend more time with his foul-mouthed wife, their indictments and their constant and unreasonable demands that other people GIVE THEM THEIR MONEY GIVE IT TO THEM NOW.

By the way, my press coffee turned out quite nicely!

Is there an option for him to resign and continue to get paid, Gregory wonders? Really? We’re concerned about alleviating this guy’s financial worries? Apparently, there is such an option. Madigan says, “I had heard that one of his main concerns was his financial situation.” I had heard the same thing! It was all over these transcripts released my the U.S. Attorney’s office. Apparently, another one of Blago’s chief concerns is the word “motherfucker.” I share that concern, actually! I guess we are not so different, Blago and I. We both swear, we both need more money, we’re not too happy about the Cubs…at the same time, there are differences. My wife is not a potty-mouthed harridan and I have hair that people respect.

Why is Blago incapable of serving? Madigan says there’s just too much alleged in the Fitz releases to give anyone any confidence that any of his decisions aren’t governed by his rapacious need for scrilla, all of the scrilla, right now and evermore in perpetuity. “From here on out, he’s going to be tainted.”

Does she know more than what we’ve been told, evidencew-wise? Madigan can’t answer that in any way other than to say that her office has been working with PFitz.

What about Madigan’s own political ambitions? She insists that she is not conflicted, saying that she has to uphold the duties of her office. She insists that she has not thought about taking any office herself.

Meanwhile, Pat Quinn, Lieutenant Governor, was at one point telling everyone what an honest and forthright man Blago was. So, what say you, Pat Quinn? Well, apparently after 2006, “things got worse and worse,” as Blago got deep into pay-to-play and kicking Quinn out of his administration (in spirit, I guess). Today, I imagine Quinn is happy about the alienation. Quinn hasn’t talked to Blago since August of 2007! Can you imagine?

Quinn seemed to be in favor of special election for the vacant Senate seat. He now thinks an interim person can fill in between now and that election. Obviously, though! Blago could not appoint this interim Senator!

Madigan is in favor of the special election, because of the taint. THE TAINT!

Woah! Is it just me, or was it weird to learn that Madigan and Quinn had been sitting next to each other all that time? Was there a shot that established that? (REWINDING.) Okay. Yes, there was. Still, that was awfully strange direction!

Some reaction to David Gregory. Emailer Gary Kirk says:

Loved the pregnant pause after Gregory introduced his first guests and they waited for him to actually ask them something. It was sort of a “holy fuck - what do I do now?” moment that made him seem a bit more human that the “Thunderbirds” puppet I usually take him for…

Thunderbirds references are always welcome here.

SickOfTheCrap comments:

Speaking of being disingenous, Jason, the automakers are not fiscally able to keep paying the current rates through 2011. That’s what the whole debate was about. By bringing their wages into line with those of foreign automakers in the US by the end of 2009, it was thought that there was a chance that this could keep the automakers afloat. The UAW appears too short-sighted to see this. At this rate, their employers won’t even be around in 2011.

I’m not averse to what you’re saying, but really, if this comes down to a matter of whether these companies have a few more months of being able to afford a workforce versus several more months of having a workforce…well, the point is that IS NOT REALLY the problem with the automotive industry! The Big Three have deep, endemic problems with virtually every facet of their existence, and they refuse to address them.

Inigo-Jones says:

You own a coffee press but you normally opt for crappy machine brewed coffee? I no longer trust you.

I can understand. But in my defense, it’s a very old and very cheap press. You probably wouldn’t use it, if you had your druthers. (It’s still pretty great, brewing coffee this way. I just need a better press, with a higher yield.)

And now, Mary Mitchell and Chuck Todd - who YES many people think should have gotten the hosting gig - are here to answer questions. The first question he answers is to say that the communication between Rahm and Blago were “perfectly normal” and the only thing the Obama camp has to worry about is if anyone did any dealbrokering. But why the delay from Obama in fully disclosing the contacts? Mitchell thinks it’s a perception problem? She also thinks it’s mindblowing that Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s name not being on Rahm’s list. You’ll forgive me if my mind remains UNBLOWN by that fact. Todd notes that Jackson would have had a hard time holding the seat in 2010, which is why he wasn’t on the list.

What is wrong with politics in Illinois? Hey! Maybe lots of things! But a lot of political machines are happy to not be in the spotlight. Mitchell is maybe onto something when she says that Blago’s greatest sin was getting caught, and in such vulgar fashion. Todd talks about how important it is to follow the connections between Wall Street contributions and connect the dots to lawmakers who allowed things like exotic, nutlog derivatives and who backed bailout giveaways. It’s almost as if Todd is saying, “Well, if I can’t host this show, at least listen to my suggestions!”

David Gregory really appreciates it!

Panel time! Here’s your panel of experts: Mitt Romney, Jennifer Granholm, Carly Fiorina, Erik Schmidt, and Lee Scott. Just what America needs! Inspiring words from CEOs! Just like in the Gospel of John!

Anyway, Granholm says that we didn’t do a good enough job explaining what failure of the Big Three would mean. Which is perhaps true! I think that just so many things are failing right now. She goes on to suggest that the importance of an American domestic auto industry is the lost innovation in the areas of energy independence. “We’ll be replacing a dependence on foreign oil with a dependence on foreign batteries.”

Romney says everyone agrees that they don’t want the auto industry to go away. But there’s a $2000 competitive disadvantage that Detroit faces. So let’s remove that disadvantage by unionizing the Dixie plants, right? Let’s have national health care? Such things makes Mitt cry! Granholm objects! Romney recites thoroughly debunked claims about labor costs.

Eric Schmidt says a bunch of nice stuff about America that he probably pulled from Google’s annual report. David Gregory asks Lee Scott if he’d take over a Big Three company, drawing a lot of dark laughter. Carly Fiorina refuses to talk about any of the things that happened to her when John McCain locked away in the closet, where she could not talk about McCain’s incompetence with the press.

“Credit is unavailable!” Fiorina says, bobbing her head wildly! “Banks are not lending!” Uhm…DUH.

David Gregory: “Governor Romney, you understand the capital markets pretty well…” Wow. I’m going to have to ask for evidence of that claim. Romney says that Americans’ net worth has dropped, somehow. “In the last couple years,” he makes sure to point out. Of course, he suggests that what we need are tax cuts and spending stimulus - but he probably won’t be happy about infrastructural spending, and he’s probably in denial about Obama’s tax cuts. But, hey! He doesn’t say anything like that today! I’m just extrapolating from his days on the stump.

Actually, part of me wonders if Fiorina and Romney maybe want to hurt each other a little.

Eric Schmidt, who advises the transition team, thinks that stimulus could provide a “two-fer,” improve infrastructure AND grow a new energy industry.

I sort of hope Fiorina runs her bull about the Irish corporate tax rates again, for auld lang syne!

Fiorina says she thinks the consumer is important and that job creation is important to consumers, and YEAH, HERE WE GO!!! High U.S. corporate tax rates!

AMERICA! Would you like to have the 12.5% corporate tax rate that the Republic of Ireland has? OF COURSE YOU WOULD! Trust me! You REALLY, REALLY would. Want to know why? As a percentage of GDP, IRELAND RAISES MUCH MORE REVENUE FROM CORPORATE TAX THAN AMERICA DOES. How do the Irish do that? Are they just drunk, all the damn time? Yes, but that’s not the reason! The reason is that despite our nominally high corporate tax rate, there are so many loopholes for corporations to wriggle out of paying, it’s pathetic! In August of 2008, the GAO released a report that noted that two-thirds of corporations operating in the United States did not pay any tax at all.

So, yes. Let us do exactly as the Irish do, please please please! But just note that when you suggest to Carly Fiorina that the drop in tax rate comes with a concomitant closure of these loopholes, she stamps her tiny feet, “No, no. no!”

For more on what a complete bullshit artists Carly Fiorina is, ENJOY.

Romney is now wondering why the President doesn’t do more the frack up the economy in the time he has left.. And now Eric Schmidt is back to just happily talking about how America is awesome, and there’s no other place on earth where he’d rather experience a painful financial crisis, except that he won’t experience any such thing because HE IS THE PRESIDENT OF GOOGLE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

What is everyone watching as far as indicators go? Granholm says consumer confidence and access to credit, so “leaders” should tell sweet little lies about how everything will be fine. Fiorina says there should be conditions attached to bailout monies that require lending. Schmidt says Obama’s stimulus package will bring confidence back to the market. Romney doesn’t want to predict something, because he will be wrong. Lee Scott just wants “Wal-Mart Mom” to be confident. Dave Gregory wants Mitt’s wife to be well, which we all want.

I think the highlight of David Gregory’s first day was when he said President Bush could “tap the TARP,” because that sounded pretty damn dirty.

That will do it for another Sunday. Thanks to everyone who helped to caffeinate me this morning. I hope that this liveblog somehow contributes to your restfulness as well, and everyone here at HuffPo hopes your holiday season is in full, happy swing. See you next week!

Read more: Sunday Morning Talk Shows, Video, Media News

McCain Whacks RNC, Defends Obama Over Blagojevich (VIDEO)

John McCain sideswiped the Republican National Committee on Sunday for the intense focus it has placed on Barack Obama’s relationship (however thin) to Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Saying he was confident that information would be made public regarding the president-elect’s contacts with the embattled Illinois governor — who is accused of putting up Obama’s vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder — McCain urged his Republican colleagues to keep their political priorities in order.

“I think that the Obama campaign should and will give all information necessary,” said the Arizona Republican. “You know, in all due respect to the Republican National Committee and anybody — right now, I think we should try to be working constructively together, not only on an issue such as this, but on the economy stimulus package, reforms that are necessary. And so, I don’t know all the details of the relationship between President-elect Obama’s campaign or his people and the governor of Illinois, but I have some confidence that all the information will come out. It always does, it seems to me.”

McCain’s remarks, delivered during an interview on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, come amidst a blitz of statements, press releases and web videos from the Republican Party on the Blaojevich subject.

On Sunday alone, the Illinois GOP launched a web site that would reportedly link 12 different state Democrats with the scandal-plagued governor. The RNC, meanwhile, released a web video titled, “Questions Remain,” highlighting Obama’s “evolving explanations” regarding the Blagojevich affair. Last week, RNC Chairman Mike Duncan said Obama was undermining his pledges for transparency and the “moderate-type” campaign that he ran on, by not being forthcoming about his contacts with the Illinois Governor.

For all of this, the complaint issued in the Blagojevich case indicates that Obama had no direct ties to the governor’s pay-for-play scheme. The president-elect has said as much. Moreover, Blagojevich is heard in wiretaps repeatedly cursing Obama and complaining that the transition team was offering only “appreciation.”

McCain, who has almost never been popular within deeply partisan Republican circles, seemed to acknowledge the notion that this is, at its heart, a tale of a corrupt Illinois pol, not some massive entanglement involving Obama that the RNC is insinuating.

Read more: McCain RNC, Obama Balgojevich, Rnc Blagojevich, Blagojevich Affair, This Week Mccain, John Mccain Obama, Mccain Blagojevich, John McCain, Sunday Shows, Mccain Rnc Attacks, Video, Politics News

McCain Campaign Sells Blackberries Filled With Confidential Files

When I found out from Wonkette that the McCain-Palin campaign was holding a firesale of campaign sundries — including teevees and laptops — not far from my neighborhood, I briefly thought about driving over to see what deals there were to be had. My wife talked me out of it, telling me that what she wanted for Christmas was a gift “not drenched in the stink of terrible failure.” As it turns out, I should have gone, because the campaign was selling twenty-dollar Blackberries choked with campaign emails and addresses of GOP bigwigs!

A Fox reporter documented the find:

There were only 10 left. All of the batteries had died. There were no chargers for sale. But people were snatching them up. So, we bought a couple.

And ended up with a lot more than we bargained for.

When we charged them up in the newsroom, we found one of the $20 Blackberry phones contained more than 50 phone numbers for people connected with the McCain-Palin campaign, as well as hundreds of emails from early September until a few days after election night.

We traced the Blackberry back to a staffer who worked for “Citizens for McCain,” a group of Democrats who threw their support behind the Republican nominee. The emails contain an insider’s look at how grassroots operations work, full of scheduling questions and rallying cries for support.

But most of the numbers were private cell phones for campaign leaders, politicians, lobbyists and journalists.

We called some of the numbers.

“Somebody made a mistake,” one owner told us. “People’s numbers and addresses were supposed to be erased.”

“They should have wiped that stuff out,” another said. But he added, “Given the way the campaign was run, this is not a surprise.”

You would think the McCain campaign would have known better, seeing how McCain invented the Blackberry in the first place.

Read more: Blackberry, John McCain, McCain-Palin Fire Sale, Sarah Palin, Politics News

Jay Mandle: The Future of Progressive Reform

Barack Obama’s victory shows that the United States has changed profoundly. But the way our first Black president-elect paid for his electoral success suggests that it is unlikely that his administration’s policies will be sufficiently progressive to meet the needs of the people of the country.

Obama was the first major presidential candidate since Watergate to choose not to pay for his campaign with public funds. Private donations fueled his effort. He could have defended his decision to opt out of the public funding system as an undesirable necessity. The fact is that the funds available from the government have not kept pace with the amount of money that candidates can raise from private sources. What Obama could have promised, but did not, was that once in office he would move to rectify the public funding shortfall so that in the future the temptation to depend on special interest donors would be less compelling.

Instead he and his staff attempted to make a virtue of their choice. The argument was that Obama’s run for office was largely financed with small donations and that this, in his words, represented “a parallel public financing system.” With it, Obama maintained, the American people “will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign” as that “traditionally reserved for the wealthy and the powerful.”

The facts speak otherwise. A careful study prepared by the Campaign Finance Institute indicates that only 24% of Obama’s presidential funds came from donors who contributed $200 or less. That percentage was only slightly higher than the 21% John McCain received from small contributors in his presidential primary races and was almost identical to the 25% contributed by small donors to George Bush during the 2004 nominating process.

Indeed, the financial base upon which Obama’s campaign depended was quite narrow. As of October 27 only about 322,000 people had contributed $200 or more to Obama’s campaign. That means that only about 0.14 percent of the country’s adult population contributed 74% of the funds the Obama campaign accumulated.

Furthermore, the sources of Obama’s funds were highly skewed. Leading the pack were lawyers as well as the professionals who work in the Finance, Real Estate and Insurance Sector. In comparison to the $37.1 million contributed by members of the legal profession and $33.1 million donated by Wall Street, the contributions made by members of unions pale to insignificance.

None of this is good news for progressives. Of course, the Obama Administration will have to address the economic crisis and it is very likely that the neo-Keynesianism of the late Bush Administration will be continued after January 20. But over and beyond the need to stimulate the economy, this country urgently requires reform and renewal. Unhappily the way Obama’s campaign was funded means that it is unlikely to get it.

Most urgently, the United States needs a new system of financial market regulation and an extension of health care insurance to the growing millions who cannot gain access to that necessity. But those are precisely the kinds of innovations that the principle Obama funders will fight against. Finance sector donors possess a vested interest in minimizing market regulation and contributors attached to the insurance industry can be expected to resist extending insurance coverage to people who cannot afford expensive premiums. Nothing can be more certain than that these political patrons will use the influence their contributions have accorded them to put a brake on regulatory and health insurance reform.

The problem is that no criticism of the influence of the major donors emerged during the campaign. Driven by the serial debacles of the Bush Administration and attracted by the profundity of the country’s racial redemption, progressives refrained from commenting on or concerning themselves with the implications of Obama’s funding. Too much seemed to be at stake. It was thought that nothing should be said that might put Obama’s possible victory at risk.

But this act of self-censorship was almost certainly a mistake. It means that the incoming Obama Administration is not under pressure from its left to clearly identify how it would go about engaging its funders so as to be able to reform Wall Street and the health insurance industry. As a result of this absence, it is very likely that the Obama Administration will choose the path of least resistance in these areas and will be cautious in pushing for progressive change.

This caution however will not be a necessity associated with its governing a center-right electorate, as the mass media put it. Rather it will be a response to the interests of its major funders, in a political context in which the political left has been mute.

Daily Show, Hall And Oates Pay Tribute To Alan Colmes

The highlight of last night’s Daily Show was the moving send-off that Stewart gave career Fox News doormat Alan Colmes, who will be leaving the Hannity & Colmes show in January. Lamenting that he couldn’t fund the words to sum up what Alan Colmes meant to him, host Jon Stewart was ably aided by rock legends Daryl Hall and John Oates, who paid tribute to Colmes through a re-written version of their classic song, “She’s Gone.” Of Colmes, they sand, “You’re the only non-douchebag on that show!” Aye, verily.

Lyrics:

Anytime you need a token liberal
Nothin’ but a body to fill a chair
The barest shadow of a person
Alan Colmes is always there.

But all those years of non-existence
Can really run a person down.
Now he’s leaving Hannity forever
Alan, please don’t go!
You’re the only non-douchebag on that show
He’s gone. Bye bye,
Oh why
He was the Tango to his cash
And he’s gone.
Oh why
To the extent
That I hadn’t noticed he was there
But he’s gone.
Oh why
What went wrong?
He’s gone. Bye bye
Oh why?
He was the Laurel to his Hardy
He’s gone
To spend
More time
Not being seen with his family
He’s gone
What went wrong?

Read more: Alan Colmes, John Oates, Hall and Oates, Jon Stewart, Sean Hannity, Hannity & Colmes, The Daily Show, Daryl Hall, Media News

Next Page »