TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Archive | August, 2009

The Ongoing Olbermann-O’Reilly Feud.. er.. ‘Truce’

By on 07 August 2009

–updated below–

On Fridays, I often go back over some items I haven’t had time to fully analyze, with this a particularly good day to do so on this one, especially as RECESS! and summer vacation call for the political class in D.C., though in cities across this country the health care war will just be ginning up, though I hope the arrests in St. Louis (where I grew up) aren’t a foreshadowing of worse things to come.

To participate in this media game of who silenced whom and who played along with the boss, or actually didn’t, you need to have done some homework on the matter. Start with Glenn Greenwald who links to all the salient posts detailing the story including David Sirota, FDL, and stats of how many times Olbermann criticized O’Reilly before and after the reported “truce” supposedly became law at the networks in question. Not to be outdone, media man for HuffPost, Jason Linkins offers a particularly breathless post on the O’Reilly – Olbermann mystery as well. But all of this scrutiny began with the New York Times story on the GE – Fox News channel enforced “truce,” which reportedly came down on Olbermann and O’Reilly that resulted in the “world’s worst person” video segment, as well as the O’Reilly smackdown below, proving the “ongoing” part of the feud is more salient than the “truce” part. Howard Kurtz has more.

However, before everyone became so recently focused, it should be noted that it was the Washington Post who first reported on the GE – Fox News Channel brawl back in May 2008, saying in part: Fox News spokesman Brian Lewis said Ailes never offered a “quid pro quo” involving a cease-fire by O’Reilly and Olbermann.

Fast forward to the NYTimes piece recently that ignited the latest media critique war:

Mr. Olbermann, who is on vacation, said by e-mail message, “I am party to no deal,” adding that he would not have been included in any conversations between G.E. and the News Corporation. Fox News said it would not comment. – Voices From Above Silence a Cable TV Feud

Back on June 1, Olbermann made a comment that after Dr. Tiller’s death, O’Reilly was no laughing matter any longer, intimating that the attacks on O’Reilly would no longer be done just for fun, so they’d be stopped.

Somewhere between the NYTimes story and Olbermann’s quote within, and Olbermann’s prior statement of June 1, many progressives started smelling something suspiciously like corporate big footing of the news, with very good arguments made to prove the point.

Now again, I won’t go into the minutia of the criticisms of Olbermann, except to say that I don’t see why all of the above doesn’t apply. First, corporate heads do insert themselves into programming of the news. Go back to “60 Minutes”, CBS honchos and David Wigand, as a good example, with many more current examples available. Secondly, Olbermann was likely not a party to any deal, though I don’t doubt the network honchos made one. Thirdly, Olbermann’s statement about Dr. Tiller is also true. Considering O’Reilly’s incitement and the subsequent murder, it’s really incumbent upon everyone to take O’Reilly’s hate speech more seriously than to constantly throw rhetorical pies at the Fox pundit.

For my money, the real story was always Richard Wolffe sitting in for Olbermann, also being the most hacktacular target of them all.

I’ve had my beefs with Olbermann, who I long ago proved isn’t worthy of Edward R. Murrow’s “Good Night, and Good Luck” sign off. But that doesn’t mean we start picking gnat crap out of pundit pepper, if you’ll excuse the crassness.

Besides, I remember Olbermann’s show back in the late 1990s during impeachment. Never forgetting his ad nauseam coverage of Zippergate, which was expected from the media money men, and finally led Keith screaming out of the MSNBC studios to also break his contract, because he couldn’t stand what he was made to cover day in and day out, as dictated to him from the top. So when he was asked again to sign on for another show, I was particularly interested to see that “Countdown” was clearly formatted to safeguard against Olbermann having to ever cover one topic throughout the whole show again, regardless of what flaming hot button political scandal was catching fire and advertising gold. So, I just don’t see Olbermann signing on to any deal that dictates to him what he can and cannot cover on a daily basis. Doesn’t ring true.

But again, that doesn’t mean that GE honchos didn’t strike a “truce” with Fox News Channel. It’s just that in the era of ratings and ad money wars, it’s very unlikely that anyone is going to tell the likes of Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly what they can and can’t cover, as long as they stick to some basic ethical guidelines. Though even the cable networks’ definition of ethics is up to question, as the Wolffe, Barry McCaffrey, “Morning Joe” brewed by Starbucks, Swiftboat Veterans for “Truth” pimping, Dr. Tiller incitement, hunting judges, imbedded journalists depending on the Pentagon for stories, etc. segments prove.

But right now, given all the evidence I’ve combed over on this one, I’m taking Keith Olbermann at his word, all of them. Let’s also remember we’re talking about Keith, shall we? He may be a lot of things, including a shill in ’08 without declaring himself, though he’s got lots of company on that one, including his pal Wolffe, but he’s no Bill O’Reilly. I’ve never stopped watching him, even in his Hillary hating glory days, as he also never stopped hitting Bush-Cheney during it all, which was always most important.

I also remember well when there wasn’t a single voice on cable who could be called even remotely Democratic. Keith, Rachel and Ed, even Davis Shuster of Chelsea pimping infamy, are a big improvement from what we had before. Watch them all, but let’s not lose sight of the big picture. We’ve got more important battles to fight, which is why I wish Media Matters, one of my favorites, was using all that Lou Dobbs cash to fight for health care.

UPDATE (12:26 pm): Well, that certainly didn’t take long; emails, links, etc. coming in on this piece, and even before, so a couple of things to make clear. First, if you look at what I’ve written in criticism of Olbermann over the last year plus, you’ll see I’ve already rendered my own judgment as to his journalistic ethics and character, which is what this latest story is about really. So, in a nutshell, if Olbermann was stupid enough to actually allow himself to be muzzled, well, all I can say is that it wouldn’t surprise me. But we’ve had a lot of that in the seats of power, media and political, over the last years. Look what Colin Powell did to much greater harm, something he’s still trying to live down, unsuccessfully. However, it won’t alter my opinion: Mr. Olbermann will remain in the place he earned during 2008; a voice that comes in handy for liberals, but who sells out, as he did in the primary season by never openly declaring his candidate preference even if it was abundantly clear, whenever it suits him.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Baitullah Mehsud, Dead or Alive?

By on 07 August 2009

Bill Rogio says the leader of the Pakistani Taliban is alive. Other reports say he’s dead, which we’ve assumed before.

ABC offered this report the other day: “There is strong indication” that Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud was killed in a CIA drone strike that targeted a house Wednesday, a senior administration official told ABC News.

Today, the New York Times leads with Taliban Leader in Pakistan Was Killed, His Aides Say, but then offer the following:

But Pakistani leaders emphasized they did not have irrefutable evidence of the killing.

“A lot of evidence is pouring in from the area that he’s dead,” said Rehman Malik, the Pakistani interior minister, “But I’m unable to confirm until there is solid evidence.”

Stay tuned. DNA testing being done to confirm Mehsud’s death 100%. Not to be ghoulish, but here’s hopin’.

Read full story · Comments are closed

TM-DC Podcast, North Korea Rescue Edition

By on 06 August 2009
Photobucket

This week’s podcast is up, also available through RSS and ITunes (and also the direct link).

Great audio clips this week, helping to tell a wonderful tale of rescue and happy endings. Including Chris Matthews, who actually gave Bill Clinton his due (thus the flying pig). Went through the hot news, starting with Sotomayor, then Edwards’ ex-mistress seen in court, Eric Cantor being un-American in Israel, as well as closing with a wild clip of Lou Dobbs imploding over Olbermann, and of course, this story, which proves new media is making traditional media errors. The podcast is lots of fun.

Speaking of North Korea, journalists and the Clintons, back at work today, Bill Clinton didn’t ducked the questions, while doing his day job, announcing the foundation’s new agreements for low-cost AIDS and tuberculosis drugs for the developing world, reported by the Washington Post.

Clinton, appearing at a news conference about his foundation’s efforts to combat AIDS, deflected questions about his impressions of Kim and about whether he had made concessions to the North Koreans to free the journalists.

“My job was to do one thing, which I was honored to do, as an American and as a father,” he said. “I wanted those young women to be able to come home.”

“Anything I say beyond that could inadvertently affect the decisions and moves either here or in North Korea, and the attitudes of our allies,” Clinton continued.

… Clinton described a “deeply emotional” first encounter with Lee and Ling. He said they were “delightful” on the trip home to Los Angeles by private plane, so happy and excited they couldn’t sleep. Lee talked frequently about being reunited with her young daughter, he said.

Enjoy the podcast.

Read full story · Comments are closed

8.6.09 – News Today; Bill Clinton NKorea Rescue of Reporters Ling, Lee, and more…

By on 06 August 2009


Photobucket 

Read full story · Comments are closed

SOTOMAYOR CONFIRMED TO U.S. SUPREME COURT, 68-31

By on 06 August 2009
Photobucket

History made.

The first Hispanic appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. history, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor is now just the second woman on the Court.

Dan Abrams offered analysis:

“We like our public institutions to reflect the way the country looks. … .. But the reality is it’s a good thing for the Court if it tends to look more like the public at large and so when you have a single woman or no women up there, it tends to, I think for many women [crosstalk]… whatever the case may be, it tends to say does this institution that’s so important really reflect me? And I think the fact that there is another woman up there is very good for those purposes alone. … I do think that it matters in terms of public perception.”

Just another note, it was Sen. Al Franken who presided over Sotomayor vote, taking a potential “golden gavel” moment to make himself seen, which Senate Majority Leader Reid orchestrated. Though it should be noted that junior senators usually preside over these types of details. It’s always nice to get the nod when something so historic is announced.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Dear Huffington Post, About That Headline…

By on 06 August 2009

–updated below–
Originally posted at Huffington Post

huffpost_clintonbanner

Yesterday was a pretty big day. The lives of two amazing journalists were saved, their families spared more emotional agony. It all started, as the New York Times reported it, after being arrested on March 17 near the North Korean border with China while reporting on human trafficking for Current TV. But yesterday, Laura Ling and Euna Lee were rescued by former President Bill Clinton in a feat of diplomatic aplomb that left anyone with a heart teary eyed and choked up, and a nation very grateful.

However, instead of blasting a headline of jubilation, someone inside Huffington Post decided to take the road down Clinton Derangement Highway, choosing the headline you see at the top of this post.

What were they thinking?

See Paul Krugman.

Being privileged enough to contribute over there, frankly, I was appalled. I wasn’t alone, as they no doubt saw in your own comment section.

So, since someone missed it, let me tell you how something like this actually works. In order to pull the whole thing off and make sure Bill Clinton went over there, got the pardon, then got home with both reporters quickly and before something went wrong, the Obama administration had to keep the political away from the humanitarian, you know, in case something actually did go wrong, creating an international incident. I’m sorry if this sounds like a lecture, as well as for those at Huffington Post who were as horrified as I was, but somebody obviously missed the whole point of no one in the Administration going. And by the way, Secretary Clinton certainly couldn’t have gone, as it would have put Obama’s foreign policy on North Korea in a ringer, which was the whole point in having someone neutral and outside the Administration involved. The other issue being that the North Koreans actually wanted Bill Clinton, because he’s a former president and a political rock star across the globe.

I shouldn’t have to tell them this. They are way too smart. So, it’s obvious their goal was something else entirely different, lowering their status to Drudge like territory.

I also shouldn’t have to tell that that running a headline blaring “BILL UPSTAGES HILLARY…. ONCE AGAIN” on a day two journalists lives were saved from doing twelve years hard labor in a North Korean prison camp made Huffington Post look silly. Petty. Small.

You screwed up. Badly.

UPDATE: I agree with Michael Calderone 100%.

I agree that headline wasn’t the most appropriate for the moment, but at the same time, it’s a good thing HuffPo allows for such criticism on its own site.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama Strategy Beyond ‘Bombs and Bullets’

By on 06 August 2009

This leads directly to the second element of the President’s approach—a clear, more precise definition of this challenge. This is critically important. How you define a problem shapes how you address it. As many have noted, the President does not describe this as a “war on terrorism.” – John Brennan

Photobucket

It’s anniversary day for ‘Bin Ladin Determined to Attack Inside US’, the PDB that was declassified in 2004. The day that found George W. Bush clearing brush in Texas when Dr. Rice handed him the warning, which didn’t faze him enough to actually act on it. Leading to 9/11.

So, it’s quite fitting that John Brennan speak at CSIS on the subject of keeping America safe, which will no longer be known as the “global war on terror,” coming on the 8th anniversary of that infamous PDB.

But even as Brennan outlines Obama’s strategy, there is one area of national security that is becoming a point of strain for Obama with some Democrats. Enter Afghanistan:

In an exclusive interview with The Nation, Feingold says he “did not believe it was in the best interest of our troops or our national security.”

Once again, Feingold looks like he will break away from the Administration if McChrystal comes back with an analysis, which is expected, that many more U.S. troops will be needed to carry out Obama’s plan.

Which leads me to ask, what exactly is the President’s plan for Afghanistan. Initially in favor of the limited increase in forces, I’m becoming more and more skeptical of what looks to me like extreme mission creep. But final judgment will wait until all the information is in. But as quick as people like Juan Cole were to charge “Obama’s Vietnam” in Afghanistan, it looks like if Juan had just waited a couple of months his post would have actually been correct. But again, we’ll have to wait to see the final plan.

Text of Brennan’s full speech, which I’ve posted, gives you a fuller idea of the scope of Obama’s larger strategy. Even top military brass long ago said “global war on terror” puts the emphasis all on military action, when combating our adversaries takes a lot more than bullets and bombs.

Likewise, the President does not describe this as a “global war.” Yes, al Qaeda and other terrorists groups operate in many corners of the world and continue to launch attacks in different nations, as we saw most recently in Jakarta. And yes, the United States will confront al Qaeda aggressively wherever it exists so that it enjoys no safe haven. But describing our efforts as a “global war” only plays into the warped narrative that al Qaeda propagates. It plays into the misleading and dangerous notion that the U.S. is somehow in conflict with the rest of the world. – John Brennan

This post has been bumped.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Lady In Pearls Is Back

By on 05 August 2009
Photobucket

Channeling yet another 1950s plot, Maureen Dowd once again forgot the century in which she awoke. Flying into another one of her fantasy fits, Ms. Dowd quickly jumped into her June Cleaver alter ego to deliver herself inside the favorite marriage of her carnal fixation, shrugging off the actual news she’s paid to cover and that two lives were saved from serving hard labor, something Dowd equates in her little Leave It to Beaver mind as simply another name for tea time at the Times.

Maybe it was some clever North Korean revenge plot, giving the limelight to Daddy to punish Mommy. Just as Hillary muscled her way back into the spotlight, moving past her broken elbow and grabbing the focus from her bevy of peacock envoys, she was blown off the radar screen again by an even more powerful envoy: the one she lives with.

It was a moment unique in the annals of diplomacy. Bill was being hailed as a dazzling statesman who might have changed the stormy weather between the U.S. and North Korea, just as Hillary was beginning an 11-day trip to Africa designed to highlight the subjects she most cares about: do-gooder development and women’s issues.

The one in charge of world affairs disappeared from the news all day on Tuesday. The one out of office dominated the news. His plane is rolling down the runway in Pyongyang with the two pardoned women on board? Zowie!

Ah yes, obviously not able to get her pearls untied from last century, Dowd chokes out a witticism, spinning it out of a libidinous imagination that’s never fulfilled until she weaves Bill into her latest romance fantasy. Because it’s the only way she can have her way with the former president, though it’s surprising her bosses haven’t noticed her obsessive penchant for political porn. Oh right, sex sells.

Only in Dowd’s June Cleaver world would you diminish the woman at work traveling the globe, while simultaneously making Gidget sounds about the man who just rescued two journalists from a North Korean prison. No doubt her heart skipping a beat at being cast as one of them. Sure her June Cleaver character could make the grade with one casting call moment on the couch.

Because seriously, the only way you could be so preoccupied with someone else’s husband is if you secretly play Wilma Mitty in your mind, jumping into the working wife’s place the minute she is out of sight.

But that’s Maureen Dowd’s world. Where Bill Clinton fantasies are spun into columns without anyone catching on that she’s actually a literary stalker.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Why the North Koreans Picked Bill

By on 05 August 2009

“I want to thank President Bill Clinton — I had a chance to talk to him — for the extraordinary humanitarian effort that resulted in the release of the two journalists.” – Pres. Obama

“Thirty hours ago, Una Lee and I were prisoners in North Korea. We feared that at any moment we could be sent to a hard labor camp. And then suddenly we were told that we were told that we were going to a meeting. [pauses, tearing up] We were taken to a location. [pause] When we walked in –[pause, tearing up]– through the doors we saw standing before us President Bill Clinton. (applause) We were shocked. But we knew instantly in our hearts that [pause] the nightmare of our lives was finally coming to an end. And now we stand here, home and free. Una and I would just like to express our deepest gratitude to President Clinton and his wonderful, amazing, not to mention super cool team [laughter] including John Podesta, Doug Band… .. .. and the United States Secret Service who traveled half-way around the world and then some to secure our release. We’d also like to thank Pres. Obama, Sect. Clinton, Vice Pres. Gore, who we also call Al, the Swedish ambassador… people at the U.S. State Dept., Steve Bing and his crew… and I know I’m forgetting a bunch of instrumental people right now. .. .. The past 140 days have been the most difficult, heart wrenching time of our lives. We are very grateful that we were granted amnesty by the government of North Korea, and we are so happy to be home. .. …” – Laura Ling

The plane carrying Euna Lee and Laura Ling, as well as Bill Clinton and his team, arrived in Hangar 25 at Burbank Airport where it was taxied inside. The first people to leave the plane were Laura Ling and Una Lee, both of whom were greeted by their families, as well as Vice President Al Gore, who the moment this tragic story began has worked endlessly to get his reporters released.

When former President Bill Clinton finally emerged from the plane it was to applause, with Al Gore embracing Clinton in a tight bear hug the second he hit the ground. The families quickly surrounded him, thanking him, as he beamed with pride that this adventure had indeed ended in a very happy ending.

Photobucket

Laura Ling spoke movingly, then Al Gore spoke for the families, while William Jefferson Clinton stayed in the background, not offering comments, proudly watching the scene unfold, then quietly walked away with the families.

Since Hillary Clinton ran for president, there has been a determined group of people inside the Democratic Party ready to diminish the Clintons relevancy, hoping beyond all hopes that both Clintons can be pushed aside as if they never held sway in American politics. This continued during the time when Hillary was being considered for secretary of state, many progressives even openly writing they just didn’t get why Obama would choose her, quick to concoct fictional scenarios of Clinton back-channeling her own agenda around her President boss. I’ve said it before, but I’ll reiterate it again. You cannot diminish pure star power and unadulterated political talent earned through years and years of strife, setbacks, great glories, humiliation and comebacks, no matter how much people want to try. Though there will no doubt be the small who delight in squealing about Pres. Clinton supposedly upstaging Sect. Clinton on this one, forgetting that he couldn’t have gone if the Secretary hadn’t sanctioned it, but also that two lives were at stake, so political pettiness over prowess simply wasn’t part of this mix.

So, once again Pres. Bill Clinton got the call. Working with his wife Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with Pres. Obama’s blessing for this humanitarian mission, as his Administration no doubt did all they could while staying out of anything diplomatically explosive; following Vice Pres. Al Gore’s lead, as he helped pull it all together, while playing liaison with the families. But it was Bill Clinton whom the North Koreans called upon, proving that when things go bad in far away lands, the one person who can still break through where others cannot remains William Jefferson Clinton. The North Koreans told the journalists they’d give them amnesty and release them if Bill Clinton specifically came to North Korea.

Maybe this will convince the professional Clinton haters, those people who always delight in making less of WJC, but also Hillary. Thinking either of them can be replaced, understanding that Barack Obama stands on Bill Clinton’s shoulders, just as Clinton stands on Carter, to Kennedy and on and on. Democrats are stronger because of the Clintons, not in spite of them.

To prove the point, let’s ask the question: Why did the North Koreans ask specifically for former Pres. Bill Clinton? During Clinton’s presidency, diplomacy reined, with containment the smart policy, especially when compared to Republican preemption, which even smart Democrats like Hillary Clinton mistakenly bought into, against what her husband had taught. Obama was smart enough to learn early. Today, what Clinton left Bush can be seen in direct contrast to what Barack Obama inherited from George W. Bush, as Obama mimics much of what Bill Clinton represented in reaching out to all nations, particularly when it comes to Middle East “peace,” able to take it one step further because of who Barack Obama is. But no one worked more tirelessly than Bill, some would say to a fault, to manifest an agreement between Israelis and the Palestinians, but also the Syrians, Jordanians and other Middle East nations. Many errors were made in the mix, particularly caving to Arafat’s demands time and again, while believing the notorious terrorist would keep his word, but no effort was spared through Clinton’s work, which continued throughout his presidency, even to the last weeks. Ireland is another example, with Clinton’s unparalleled diplomatic commitments a hallmark of his presidency whether you’re talking about the Middle East, Russia or North Korea, amidst the horrific mistakes like Rwanda, which Clinton has admitted himself. So that as Obama comes into office he understands even more fully how he can utilize, build on and expand the work Bill Clinton began before him. In time, learning from former President Bill Clinton, I truly pray that Barack Obama will take the lessons taught through Clinton’s Middle East efforts, as well as the bridges built, to finally forge true equilibrium in a region crying out loudly for it today. All of this stands in direct contrast to what George W. Bush and the Republicans pushed, instead instituting the Anything But Clinton policy, which has proven to always come back to bite the politician who ignores the lessons of what Clinton ventured to manifest. John Bolton being the latest crazed George W. Bush alumni to make a fool of himself when trying to criticize Bill Clinton’s brilliant rescue of the journalists, which happened because of what Bill Clinton still represents to most of the world. Today, he is a statesman without equal.

It continues to be a wild ride for the Big Dawg, with this latest triumph making him a hero once again.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Republicans Can’t Afford for Democrats to Succeed

By on 05 August 2009

Michelle Malkin is pouting (incoherently) again.

The impassioned thrashing in public of the wingnut fringe is having the impact of rallying Democrats, which isn’t exactly what Malkin maniacs had in mind.

DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse issued a statement about “the Republican Party and Allied Groups’ Mob Rule,” saying that the “Republicans and their allied groups — desperate after losing two consecutive elections and every major policy fight on Capitol Hill — are inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists funded by K Street Lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America taking place in Congressional Districts across the country.”

“The right wing extremists’ use of things like devil horns on pictures of our elected officials, hanging members of Congress in effigy, breathlessly questioning the president’s citizenship and the use of Nazi SS symbols and the like just shows how outside of the mainstream the Republican Party and their allies are. This type of anger and discord did not serve Republicans well in 2008 — and it is bound to backfire again.”

The backlash has begun, with progressive health care activists organizing online, get your August Recess Guide here, in order to get the word out about where town halls will be held so serious people who want the insurance companies held to account can get their voices heard.

But it all comes down to the absolute, bone clattering panic of the Republicans, who obviously have guessed that if Democrats succeed in getting serious health care reform, once again they will be cast as the party with no answers and no solutions for the people.

Like other government safety nets, health care will be delivered through Democratic passion for what’s possible and what’s needed to make the lives of people better. Instead of trying to convince people to vote against their own best interests so you can seem relevant, when the only answer you have to any question is no.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Clinton, Freed Journalists Arrive at Hangar 25

By on 05 August 2009

Photobucket
Laura Ling speaks about “last 140 days.”

Photobucket
Al Gore greets Bill Clinton with bear hug, amidst applause.

Photobucket
Plane, provided by Steve Bing, carrying Clinton, Euna Lee and Laura Ling arrives.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Labeling the Angry Mob Won’t Be Enough

By on 04 August 2009

This can be boiled down into a very short analysis. The other side has emotion on their side, while Democrats sound clinically professorial. You cannot win any political campaign without connecting to people’s emotions.

In the video, Kathleen Sebelius clearly gets out messaged by the organized mob. Question is, why was she so ill prepared and does it really matter if the screaming hecklers are paid activists and lobbyists when the Administration and Democrats clearly have no plan to confront them? Besides, if Democrats and progressives succeed in casting hecklers as paid shills, there goes the opportunity to nail them for what they really are, extremists, a much more damaging label.

The White House (and Democrats) need to approach the town halls as if they are primary caucuses, something that candidate Barack Obama knows how to work very well. Because it’s obviously war out there.

Gibbs seemed to be getting what’s going on today when he referred to the extremists by calling them the “Brooks Brothers Brigade”. Obviously referring to the wild-eyed wingnuts who caused such a stir down in Florida during the 2000 recount.

Marc Ambinder is among the growing number of people putting the Dems in the spotlight:

The more troublesome question for Democratic strategists is why the major Democratic groups, including Organizing for America, the labor unions, Health Care for America Now, seem to be flatfooted and unable to match the much smaller conservative organizing capacity in these critical districts. One answer is that the media pays attention to the loudest voices, which are coming from the right. The other is that organizing around major — even popular — reforms of existing institutions is tough. The Democrats don’t have a single bill right now, and the elite left is worried about what’s not in the cards — a public plan — and is therefore fairly unenthusiastic. If the liberal elite isn’t enthusiastic, the liberal base — less knowledgeable — will be as well.

Hopefully the Brooks Brothers Brigade labeling will stick and cascade across the media.

The thing that’s alarming is that when I analyze this down I come to the uncomfortable conclusion that it really doesn’t matter whether the right has well financed, well organized mobs, including insurance shills, showing up for Democratic town halls. It’s still a whole lot of angry partisans who believe what they’re shouting getting the attention, while Democrats look positively lame when responding.

When your average American isn’t paying full attention and only tunes in to hear the shouts and see the outrage; given the economic state of most people’s lives, it’s not a far jump to bet the viewer agrees with the rabble.

That’s why focusing on describing the angry mobs showing up at town halls is in the end pretty worthless. Details seldom matter in these types of campaigns. Take the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, who were a bunch of partisan liars out to impugn the integrity of a Democratic veteran. The details didn’t matter; they simply tapped into doubts already there and funneled emotion through them.

What’s important is the offense Democratic legislators are offering at the top of their town hall, not the description of whom they’re facing. So even though Brooks Brothers Brigade is good, very good, it doesn’t hit the emotion button like the angry mob is doing. One person in an email to me suggested every single legislator bring an “average American” who has a health care horror story to tell to the town hall and have him/her tell their tale. Bring two! Hearing heartbreaking real life stories hits that emotion button critical in these types of campaigns. Besides, it’s much harder to yell at a health care victim than it is a politician.

Unfortunately, right now there is no such plan in motion, with the passion mostly on the organized mob side. So that’s where the cameras will be focused, even if we succeed in labeling them, which has already become a problem as talk radio brings on listener after listening exclaiming, “We are too grass roots!”

There goes the Brooks Brothers Brigade. Then what? So far, Democrats have no answers.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Industry-Backed Anti-Health Care Reform Group: Yeah, We’re Packing And Disrupting The Health Care Town Halls

By on 04 August 2009


Why does much of the news media seem to be ignoring this orchestration? Chris Matthews – yesterday – acted as if this was some grass roots uprising.

“Yesterday, I reported that the anti-health care reform group Conservatives for Patients Rights was enlisting tea party protesters to attend and disrupt health care town halls hosted by members of Congress in their regions.

Today, CPR–which is headed by disgraced hospital executive Rick Scott, and has enlisted the message men behind the Swift Boat campaign–has acknowledged their behind-the-scenes role in the outbursts.

snip

Members of this list serve were not only supplied with list of town hall forums, but with a strategy document outlining the same disruptive techniques we’re seeing play out at health care public forums around the country.

The disclosure makes official what much of the reporting about the disruptions seemed to indicate: that industry funded groups–who stand to benefit if health reform legislation fails–are playing a significant role in organizing, and perhaps ginning up, the outbursts we’re seeing at health care public forums around the country.”

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

PRES. BILL CLINTON RESCUES JOURNALISTS

By on 04 August 2009

–updated–

“President Clinton has safely left North Korea with Laura Ling and Euna Lee.” – Clinton’s spokesperson

Photobucket

bill-clinton

Breaking news from multiple news sources that both U.S. journalists (video at the link) will leave with former President Clinton tonight.

The pardons were announced by North Korea’s state-run news agency, The Associated Press reported. … .. The source, who has knowledge of the Clinton team’s mission, was hopeful that the two will leave North Korea tonight for the United States, possibly even on the same plane as Clinton.

This was a flawlessly orchestrated diplomatic mission carried off without a single hitch.

It remains to be seen if Clinton will carry any information back to Obama that will be helpful going forward.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Open Season

By on 04 August 2009

“We’ve addressed these rumors before. They are nothing more than typical Washington parlor games. It’s disappointing that while we are focused on reviving the economy and fighting two wars, others spend their time pointing fingers in an attempt to promote their own status.” – White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, via Wall Street Journal

Photobucket

Whether the Wall Street Journal has a solid story amidst the wild-eyed, anonymously sourced writing that breathlessly offers that the Administration is “holding discussions that could result in White House counsel Gregory Craig leaving his post,” is unknowable right now. The White House, the only source on record for the piece, is having none of it, with Emanuel’s office quick to swat it down.

What isn’t really in question is that Greg Craig has not served his President well.

The state secrets issue is a problematic stance, but it’s hardly shocking once Obama became part of the Presidents’ Club. And the idea of closing Gitmo isn’t an issue either, even though The Weekly Standard wants to make it one. Gitmo has to be closed, though no one is doubting that doing it won’t be easy. If it were we’d have done it already. Besides, keeping Gitmo open is untenable in an Obama presidency. But the real tipping point for Greg Craig was when he put Pres. Obama in a place where he had to reverse himself on releasing detainee photos, in a flip flop that revealed horrific legal advice that exposed the President to his adversaries, while it was clear that the timing of the release would coincide to Obama hitting Cairo just as the photos were to be released. It was a White House amateur hour moment, likely delivered, at least in part, through bad advice from Craig.

When you couple this with DADT, which is clearly under the national security umbrella, which Craig seems to partially hold up, the decision to not have the President issue an executive order (as Truman did on desegregating the military), but instead let legislation snake through at a snail’s pace, while pictures of a hunky fighter jock about to be kicked out of the Air Force blast across the country, clearly presents Obama look like a man who doesn’t deliver on promises. When you have Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, who is about to be discharged even after heroic service, saying that explicitly, well, it’s a direct hit no commander in chief takes lightly from a vaunted military man who also has the backing of military groups across the country.

FISA is yet another issue where Greg Craig’s excuses for Obama remain incredulous to this day. But it was foreshadowing of the bad advice to come. From 2008:

“This was a deliberative process, and not something that was shooting from the hip,” Mr. Craig said. “Obviously, there was an element of what’s possible here. But he concluded that with FISA expiring, that it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire.”

Greg Craig may or may not lose his job, but so far, he’s not done the President much good.

It may not be fair to judge it like this, but it just seems like this WSJ piece is part of the shotgun blast coverage Pres. Obama is now getting since his poll numbers started to soften and he’s made himself vulnerable over the horrific mismanagement on health care messaging, which culminated in the botched press conference that led to the “beer summit” that took Obama further off message on health care. While Republicans dug in and down, continuing their well funded grass roots campaign in the void, with nothing short of well financed and well organized mobs bombarding legislators in their home districts, which will continue throughout the recess.

Greg Sargent asks the bottom line question: Is Obama’s Vaunted Political Operation Getting Outworked By Tea-Baggers?

Going after Craig is just a side show for the real battle, which is to take down Obama by scuttling health care. So Republicans are hitting the President wherever they can. It’s open season on all things Obama.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Racist Poster Uses Blockbuster Character Camoflage

By on 04 August 2009
Photobucket

Barack Obama in white face, reminiscent of the old minstrel shows.

But everyone in LA is only seeing a Hollywood character.

A poster showing President Barack Obama as Heath Ledger’s “Joker” character from “The Dark Knight” is creating a stir on the streets of Los Angeles where the image began appearing over the weekend.

The Obama-Joker poster shows President Obama with white face paint, dark eye shadow and smudged red lipstick and also has the word “socialism” printed in bold, dark letters under the image of his face.

It’s unclear who created the image and who is posting it across the city. No one has taken credit so far. …

The character itself uses “The Joker” to paint Obama in these white face tones, but the “socialism” underneath is nothing but a convenience to distract from the obvious.

This is blatant racism.

Picture a white president in black face with “socialism” painted underneath.

Provocative, certainly. But sending a message of socialism in Los Angeles using a now renown Hollywood character, which just happens to be “The Joker.” Seems obvious to me. The character in the movie a maniacal, dangerous and deadly killer, making everyone in the city unsafe. Swiftboating on steriods.

It will be interesting to find out whose behind the campaign. However, if this is happening in Los Angeles, one thing’s for sure, the luster is off the rose.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Pres. Bill Clinton in North Korea

By on 03 August 2009

–updated–

TM UPDATE 4.4 @ 10:10: Nobody commands more respect around the globe than former President Bill Clinton, especially in North Korea. This is being proven out by the developing story that the North Koreans reportedly contacted the relatives of the girls to tell them they’d surrender the journalists to Bill Clinton, something that’s been in the works for weeks. MSNBC was the first to report this part of the story. Politico’s Mike Allen has more. The White House gave their blessing, but from what is known now, was not involved in any way in actually facilitating WJC going. That was specifically on request from the North Koreans, at least as we know now. It’s a “solely private mission,” says the White House:

“While this solely private mission to secure the release of two Americans is on the ground, we will have no comment. We do not want to jeopardize the success of former President Clinton’s mission.”

To add, it does set the stage for an interesting moment of potential opportunity, so the mind reels at what else could possibly be discussed, however informally that would be.

________original post below_________

Scott Snyder, a North Korea expert for the nonprofit Asia Foundation, said Clinton’s standing as a world statesman carried weight with Pyongyang. “The North Koreans have a lot of nostalgia for the end of the Clinton administration,” he said. – LA Times

Photobucket

According to multiple media sources, former President Bill Clinton has landed in North Korea to try to negotiate a way out of journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling imprisonment. Neither the White House or State is commenting.

From the Washington Post:

Former president Bill Clinton landed in North Korea on Tuesday, North Korean state radio reported, on an apparent mission to negotiate the release of two American journalists who have been sentenced to 12 years of hard labor.

South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency and China’s official New China News Agency also reported that Clinton had arrived at an airport in Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, on a flight from the United States. …

Let’s hope the Big Dog can get this done. I’m sure Al Gore, for whom the women were working when they were arrested, knows the situation is in very good hands. Though no one and I mean no one is talking.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Avigdor Lieberman Will Resign if Indicted

By on 03 August 2009

“If [after a hearing] the attorney-general decides on serving an indictment,” Lieberman said, “at that moment, I will resign [as foreign minister.]. Three to five months afterward, I will resign as party chairman and Knesset member; the period of time will enable an orderly transition of positions.”

After what is being billed as a nine-year-long investigation, Netanyahu’s fiery foreign minister is facing charges including bribery, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. Lieberman’s antics are legend. Haaretz reports today Israeli police think they’ve got him.

Tucked inside the story on the outrageous eviction of Palestinians is the scandal inside Netanyahu’s government:

“This is an octopus,” one of the investigators said in describing Lieberman’s activities. “We did not believe we would get this far in this investigation.”

The first person I heard talk about Lieberman’s troubles finally coming to a head was Daniel Levy, back in early April.

Christian Science Monitor reports on what Lieberman’s possible indictment would mean for the Netanyahu government, but also for Livni; with the answer depending on whose expertise you rely.

Washington Post picked up the story as well, which is spinning out across the globe.

Opposition Leader Tzipi Livni fired a shot at Lieberman during a Kadima meeting saying that though he has every right to fight to prove his innocence, “there is one thing that is not within one’s civil rights and that is to claim that Israel Police is motivated by political interests and personally and politically persecutes people.” She went on:

“When the internal security minister hesitates or stays quiet, it is the role of the prime minister of Israel to provide the necessary support for the law enforcement authorities when they are being attacked by a minister in his cabinet,” she said.

As for the Palestinian evictions, Sect. Clinton condemned the Israel’s actions and rightly accused them of not living up to their obligations, which is also what I wrote about earlier today when addressing the settlement issue.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led the international condemnation, labelling (sic) the evictions “deeply regrettable” and “provocative” and accusing Israel of failing to live up to its international obligations under existing peace initiatives.

“I have said before that the eviction of families and demolition of homes in east Jerusalem is not in keeping with Israeli obligations,” Clinton told reporters at a Washington press conference alongside Jordanian counterpart Nasser Judeh.

“And I urge the government of Israel and municipal officials to refrain from such provocative actions.”



TM NOTE: The quote from Lieberman at the top didn’t appear in initial upload, which has now been remedied.

Read full story · Comments are closed

God Forbid Those Nasty Homos Serve Our Country Openly

By on 03 August 2009

I am so sick to death of this rank discrimination, which should not only be judged unconstitutional, but deprives this country of bonafide heroes. Pres. Obama is proving as spineless as some garden variety Republican. He’s sure as hell no Harry Truman.

As a candidate, Obama promised that the law would be overturned, but the administration has moved cautiously, not wanting to wage a costly political battle on the divisive issue during the president’s first months in office, as President Bill Clinton did.

“Hearing the president’s promises last fall, I thought he would follow through,” Fehrenbach said. “It’s just been disappointing because we’ve seen nothing.”

Comparing today with what Bill Clinton tried to do back in the early 1990s, which was ill thought out at the time, is absurd. We’re talking over 15 years later on an issue that clearly has moved in the Idea Whose Time Has Come category.

Pres. Obama’s continued “The president has said he thinks it should be done legislatively” cowardice is further evidence of our President’s inability to stand up and do what’s right, when he clearly has the power to change the equation, while we all wait for Congress to get in a position to take the issue up themselves.

In the middle of health care, however, Obama obviously believes that sacrificing soldiers like Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach is a price he’s willing to pay. Can’t afford to anger those Republicans or Blue Dogs, now can we? Even though whatever they decide to do on health care has already been decided.

If Pres. Obama thinks legislation will get through Congress without serious leadership on his part, well, get prepared for health care message drift, DADT edition.

The homophobic anti national security nut jobs squealing from the right, like Elaine Donnelly, aren’t going to go silently without a strong offense.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a group that opposes gays in the armed forces, said in a statement last week that most in the military do not want the restrictions lifted. “Civilian culture has changed, but the unique culture of the military has not changed,” she said.

Well, Truman desegregated the Army, and he did it through executive order, deciding he didn’t want to wait for legislation. But as we all know, Pres. Truman may have been many things, but he wasn’t afraid to confront injustice and do the the heavy lifting himself.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Downplaying Settlements

By on 03 August 2009

The constant drumbeat in the American press is that Israelis don’t like Obama, don’t trust him. They want him to speak to them and tell them his plan. According to the New York Times, a media campaign is about to begin.

… In coming weeks, senior administration officials said, the White House will begin a public-relations campaign in Israel and Arab countries to better explain Mr. Obama’s plans for a comprehensive peace agreement involving Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab world.

The campaign, which will include interviews with Mr. Obama on Israeli and Arab television, amounts to a reframing of a policy that people inside and outside the administration say has become overly defined by the American pressure on Israel to halt settlement construction on the West Bank.

“We’re at a crucial moment now,” said Martin S. Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel and peace negotiator in the Clinton administration. “There are only so many visits George Mitchell can make.” …

Reach out is necessary, including to the Israelis. Especially since some Israelis and American Jews are suggesting a more formal speech from Obama. I think they’re a bit envious about Obama’s Cairo speech, also not having listened to his commitments to Israel that were within. It may have been a speech made in Cairo, but it had messages to everyone, though I still contend Obama feel far short of address the abuse of women, as I said at the time. But we can’t get caught up in that, now can we?

But the analysis of the Times goes a bit haywire here: In the Arab world, there is little evidence of a change of heart toward Israel.

This is not very good analysis. Over the last months since moving the D.C., I’ve been to innumerable events featuring Arabs and non Jews, as well as read news reports from the well sourced, talking about Middle East “peace”. Most in the Arab world are ready, many already talking continually about how Middle East equilibrium has a very short window of time to manifest, otherwise we’re likely to see a new round of bloodshed.

“Incrementalism and the step-by-step approach have not, and we believe will not, achieve peace,” the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said after meeting Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. “Temporary security, confidence-building measures, will also not bring peace.”

Prince Saud al-Faisal has been saying this since the Saudi-US forum I attended back at the end of April:

9:41:38 AM: Al-Faisal: We don’t need more plans from Obama. “We need implementation.” (via live reporting Twitter feed)

Zbigniew Brzezinski has been even more forceful, as have others.

“One of the public misimpressions is that it’s all been about settlements,” Mr. Mitchell, the administration’s special envoy to the Middle East, said in a rare interview Friday after six months on the job. “It is completely inaccurate to portray this as, ‘We’re only asking the Israelis to do things.’ We are asking everybody to do things.”

In the quote above from the Times, Mitchell makes a point of saying that everyone is being asked to do things, while trying to downplay that “it’s all been about settlements.” The reality is that we shouldn’t even be having this discussion, because as Hillary Clinton said a while back, that issue is closed. A settlement freeze has been something Israel agreed on since back when Mr. Indyk was involved during the Clinton administration. From his most recent book, Innocent Abroad, which ironically gets its title from something Ronald Reagan said.

On the second level, both sides were supposed to implement their Road Map commitments under the watchful eye of an American general.*

*Among other obligations, Israel was supposed to freeze all settlement activity and dismantle illegal settlement outposts while the Palestinian Authority was supposed to end incitement and violence as well as begin dismantling the infrastructure of terror.

The first sentence leads to the footnoted section, which is noted at the bottom of page 386 in Indyk’s book.

Now, we can all pretend that settlements are not an issue, but that won’t get us any closer to equilibrium than when George W. Bush hurriedly whipped up instant peace negotiations hoping something would stick before he road back to Texas on the same ass he road in backwards on when first coming to Washington.

Of course it’s not just about settlements. But that we’re even talking about them at this point isn’t because of Obama.

Read full story · Comments are closed