Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Swift Boat Veterans Against McCain

Aside from a few mass email forwards, unofficial Republican attacks on Obama have been surprisingly absent from this year's presidential race. While "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" was unveiled in early May of the 2004 election cycle, and had ads on the air by mid-June, there are apparently no well-funded groups gearing up for 2008. Ready to Attack Obama, if Some Money Arrives, from today's New York Times, summarizes the situation:


No major independent effort to help Senator John McCain’s campaign has materialized. Although Republican operatives say something will eventually develop, alarm has spread among many, especially after Mr. Obama’s announcement on Thursday on public financing, raising the prospect that he will wield an enormous financial advantage over Mr. McCain in the fall.

Many reasons explain the absence of a serious independent effort at this point, Republican strategists said. Many wealthy donors who might be in a position to finance a 527 group, named for the Tax Code section that covers them, or a similar independent effort that is free to accept unlimited contributions are wary this time because of the legal problems that dogged many such groups after the 2004 election.

Major donors are said to be uncertain of Mr. McCain’s chances as Republicans face a decidedly unfavorable climate in the fall. Lingering, as well, is the possibility that they may anger Mr. McCain, who has a record of campaign finance reform and has in the past been critical of such groups.


Politico offers a deeper analysis of why the money hasn't materialized and won't be coming from the same sources as last time. A piece of the apparent poverty stems from preparations set in place during Hillary Clinton's long presumptive nomination, which soaked up both funds and energy in the production of work that cannot easily be used against Obama. Furthermore, it appears that none of the big-name donors who supported "Swift Veterans" are taking a hand in this election. And why should they, considering McCain's open disgust with that side of politics?


But, in explaining the absence of any anti-Obama groups this time around, every individual interviewed for this story cited the same central reason: a fear that their party’s nominee will publicly denounce them and hold a grudge.

“Both donors and operatives know how much [McCain] abhors these groups,” said John Weaver, the Arizona senator’s former chief strategist, referring to the independent groups that have thrived following passage of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. “If he is ultimately successful and any of these groups played a significant effort in electing him, many believe, probably rightfully, that they would be ostracized.”

Another GOP strategist said that McCain’s denunciation of a 501(c)(4) which aired an ad in South Carolina last November touting McCain when his resources were severely limited sent a chilling message to potential independent expenditure groups.

McCain issued a public statement at the time calling on the group, spearheaded by GOP adman Rick Reed, to “cease and desist.”

"Anyone who believes they could assist my campaign by exploiting a loophole in campaign finance laws is doing me and our country a disservice,” McCain said then.

He used even stronger language after that, saying at a Texas town hall meeting in late February that 527s “are distorting the entire political process and they need to be outlawed.”



However, as both articles note, McCain has been careful not to strongly criticize Obama attack groups for the last few months, saying that he will not play "referee" during the general election. It is also possible that Obama's massive predicted financial advantage will spur republican donations.

Nor is the lack of widespread attacks caused by a lack of trying, but merely a lack of funds. Floyd Brown of ExposeObama.com has put the following two ads online, and pledges more:







The first ad, in particular, would be scary on a national level. In spite of being thoroughly and repeatedly debunked, the rumor that Obama is a "secret Muslim" has endured for months and was cited in post-primary interviews with voters in states that Obama lost. Seeing "evidence" for the rumor on television could cement many voters' mistaken impression that Obama is lying about a Muslim past, and provide a way for certain voters to maintain racist preconceptions in a more socially acceptable, though still disgustingly bigoted, manner.

However, there is reason to think that a campaign based on ads like that won't be as effective as the "Swift Boat" attacks, which called into question a core aspect of Kerry's appeal in a way that was difficult for Kerry to directly address. Obama's charisma, his on- and off-line media advantage, and his willingness to confront racial issues and "smears" openly and directly make him fundamentally less vulnerable to these sort of attacks. In fact, I'm hoping that race will be as much of a shield for Obama as it is an under-the-table liability: many television companies may refuse to run ads with strong racial overtones for fear of legal or financial consequences, and any race-based attack has the potential to backfire tremendously against McCain. If this is the best they've got, they may be in serious trouble even if money does materialize.

Still, mass funding or no, there's going to be some outrageous mudslinging in the next few months, and it won't always be possible to control the damage. The only real solution Obama has is to run so effective a campaign that a few points lost to disinformation won't hurt. And on that front, even without that totally insane 6/18-6/19 Newsweek poll, he's off to a good start.

EDIT: OK, PS, this is just great.

Monday, June 16, 2008

To Russert, with love

Tim Russert was everything I aspire to be as a journalist, and more. The outpouring over the weekend speaks to why he was so good at his job. Russert just gave off the sense that he would be just as personable face-to-face as he seemed to be on television. He seemed like the kind of guy that could be your friend if you met him in real life, while simultaneously treating his job with the utmost respect and professionalism.


Many of his colleagues have spoken about his dedication and passion for political journalism, both of which shined through whenever he was on. 

Simply put, Tim Russert was a damn good journalist, and evidently an even better human being.

Another reason it was so easy for me to identify with Russert was his passion for sports, which he would frequently mention during important political coverage (how gangsta!). Born and raised in South Buffalo, he loved the Bills and constantly repped them to the fullest. Not only that, but living in Washington, he adopted the re-born Nationals as his own and was a season ticketholder of theirs and the Wizards. 

As linked to on Japers' Rink, here is one of his signature sports-related sign-offs on Meet The Press that held a particularly special place in my heart.




I'm gonna miss you, Tim.

Sunday, June 15, 2008

R.I.P. Tim Russert

Sunday Morning wasn't the same without you.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Oh Fox News...

In response to this:
You get this:

From the June 6 edition of Fox News' America's Pulse:

Host E.D HILL: A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently.
It's going to be a long election season...

Friday, May 30, 2008

A few more questions...

So by now you've all probably heard about Scott McClellan's tell all book about his time in the white house. I gotta say, the firestorm has been pretty funny to watch, but at the same time it seems like there are some really logical follow up questions that should probably be asked.

  • Now that it seems like everyone is comfortable with the idea that the Iraq war was based on lies and a PR campaign... shouldn't that mean something? I feel like there's this thing - in that other thing - high crimes and... something? Oh well, moving on.
  • Before I saw the interview he did last night on Olbermann, my main question about the whole thing was "why is he doing this?" McClellan wasn't Cheney, Rove or Rice, he was one of the few remaining connections to Bush's era as Texas governor, and I think he might be coming to grips with what he was a part of. Like everyone else, I originally figured this was about making money, but the more I thought about it, I don't really think so. I mean, he's gonna make money from this book and all, but this book cuts off any other chance of making money on the conservative book/speech giving/consulting/think tank circuit, which seems like it would be insanely profitable over the long haul. And it's not like he had a courageous resigning in protest moment that will endear him to the left like Richard Clarke or Paul O'Neill, so there might not be much money on that side either. It's almost impossible to believe that someone who spent that long lying to all of us is trying get the truth out, but after watching his interview last night, thats the impression I got.
  • Anybody want to point out that all the attacks are on McClellan as a person, and no one in the administration is denying the truth of his specific claims. Shouldn't that tell us something?
The majority of the outrage of about this story completely misses the point. There isn't really too much new news when it comes what he said. The surprise here is that you're getting this info from as inside of a source as you're going to find. The fact is if you've been a journalist covering the Bush white house (like David Gregory for example), and you are shocked by the claims that he made (like Gregory's outrage about the timid questions before of the iraq war)... THEN YOU HAVEN'T BEEN DOING YOUR JOB! If the guy whose job it is to take your questions says that you weren't hard enough on him, then you should probably hand in your notepad and call it a career, because well, you're just not good enough. Call Jeremy Scahill and give him your press pass on your way out.

Monday, May 19, 2008

Kevin James, meet Alton Lister.

Alton Lister Fan Club membership is reserved for those who are publicly dominated and humiliated in a way reminiscent of Shawn Kemp's brutal dunk over Alton Lister. And yes, this is a complete rip off of Sirota's Tom Chambers award. Deal with it. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, or something like that. And besides, he hasn't done it in a while, so someone needs to continue comparing current events to amazing dunks.

This week's addition to the Club is unknown right wing hack(until this) Kevin James. I give Chris Matthews a lot of shit, but you gotta give credit where credit is due. His evisceration of this tool is pretty great to watch.

Ooh. That was ugly. What's funny about James is that he really looks exactly like the cut-out republicans from This Modern World. I swear there's a warehouse out in Northern Virginia that just stores these douchebags until they need to put a conservative pundit on tv or have to field the 2009 Duke lacrosse team.

You'd like to think an appearance like that would put him out of TV work, but I think we all know better. See you on Fox news, brah.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

This can't be a good sign

From the DC Sports Bog this morning, news has broken that longtime sports columnist Tony Kornheiser has taken a buyout from the Washington Post, where he was an employee for nearly 30 years.

"All I ever wanted to be was a newspaper writer," he said, which is likely not something that anyone under the age of 30 will ever say again. "This other stuff is great, but I don't care about it," he continued. "In my mind that's what it says on the headstone, it says 'newspaper guy.' "
(via the Bog).

Hey, wait a minute... I'm under the age of 30! What does this mean for my upcoming degree in print journalism? Should I flush it down the toilet?

You see, up to this point my plan was to follow in the footsteps of guys like Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon and write about sports for a living at a reputable newspaper (maybe even a world-renowned paper like the Washington Post). Then, if I became any good, I could become a columnist (like those guys), become rich and famous, live happily ever after and all that jazz.

Clearly though, this is an odd time to become a journalist, what with the declining revenues and increase in people looking to the internet or television to get their news. The largely-held belief that newspapers will be entirely digital in the future is hard to argue against, but 15-20 years ago not a single aspect of any paper was online. About 25 years ago, there was no internet, at least not in the way it exists today. My question is what will become of the internet 25 years from now? Theoretically, there could be some whole other system in place that is completely unforeseen.

So I'm not so sure about this notion that newspapers will no longer exist in a physical form at some point in the future. What exactly it will consist of, though, is anybody's guess.

As for Kornheiser, I've never agreed with everything he's had to say but I always had enormous respect for him. It's not the job of a sports columnist, or any columnist for that matter, to always go along with the popular opinion. You are entitled (and paid) to say whatever the fuck you want, within reason. The reason I've always respected Kornheiser and Wilbon is that they brought their own opinions to the table, passionately defended them and never tried to run from them if they turned out to be completely wrong. It's no coincidence that the two went on to host "Pardon The Interruption" on ESPN; they are two of the best in the business. As other shows like "Around The Horn" later proved, most sports columnists are unbelievable idiots.

Kornheiser will still host his radio show, as well as PTI and will be in the booth for Monday Night Football. Plus, you could see him being fazed out from the Post for the past couple of years, really. With that being said, farewell to one of my biggest sportswriting influences.

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Fox news tackles class politics

This speaks for itself:





You know, it's easy to forget how bad fox news is, so it's good to have clips like this every now and then to remind ourselves why it's such a joke. Also, 4 right wingers blowhards... what a panel to discuss the DEMOCRATIC nomination! I sure care what they think about the fate of a party they spent their careers trashing!

Side note: I'll be out of town for a few days, but don't worry the Train of Thought will roll on thanks to the fantastic work of our contributing writers. See you next week, where we'll continue to enjoy the final stages of the Hillary Clinton's meltdown/fall from grace. It couldn't happen to a nicer person.

PEACE!

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Obama and Fox News: The Debate

So there's been somewhat of a pretty big debate on the left surrounding Obama's appearance on fox news last Sunday. To start, Kos provides a good explanation on the background, and why he was didn't approve.

We've spent the last few years in the netroots working to discredit Fox News as the propaganda network strives for mainstream respectability. The more it is viewed as a legitimate news outlet, the better it will be at injecting right-wing narratives into the broader media stream. It's why we fought so strongly against the attempts by the Nevada Democratic Party and the Congressional Black Caucus to partner with Fox on several Democratic primary debates. Debating on Fox made as much sense as Republicans debating on Air America. Or Daily Kos.

Given Fox's role in pushing several bullshit attacks against Obama (including the one about Obama attending a Muslim Madras while living in Indonesia in his youth), Obama had wisely steered clear of the network during the primary. Yet he clearly hit on a dilemma -- Indiana is an open primary, hence Republican crossover support could be key to victory in the state. And where do Republicans hang out? Yup. Fox News.

On the other hand, the network had consistently taunted his refusal to visit Fox. His appearance essentially sends the message that Obama is susceptible to caving to right-wing bullying taunts and threats. Perhaps not a surprise since that appears a trait embedded in the Democrats' DNA.
Move on (whose members have endorsed Obama) explains further(with links):

It was a mistake for Obama to go on FOX’s Sunday show and treat the experience as if it was a real news interview. Democratic politicians need to understand that FOX is a Republican mouthpiece masquerading as a news outlet. When dealing with FOX, you either burn them or they will burn you.

It's well documented that FOX executives send morning memos to anchors and reporters dictating Republican talking points. In 2006, one said, “Be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents...thrilled at the prospect of a Dem controlled Congress.” Robert Greenwald's videos have shown FOX's consistent pattern of smearing Barack Obama, smearing Hillary Clinton, smearing African Americans, and denying global warming.

FOX's power lies not in its audience size – which is puny and consists mostly of unpersuadable voters. Instead, FOX's power comes from tricking politicians and real journalists into treating their “breaking stories” like real news, thereby propelling smears like the Swift Boats and Rev. Wright into the mainstream political dialogue. That's why progressives fought (successfully) last year to deprive FOX of the legitimacy that comes with hosting a Democratic presidential debate. And that's why Democratic politicians should never treat FOX like a real news outlet - including FOX's Sunday show.

So I've gone back and for on this. I agree with most of the stuff written above, and successfully marginalizing fox as a conservative news network is a very important goal, and the tool we have on that front is to stop democrats from legitimizing it as a network. But even though I wouldn't have advised him to go on, the narrative of his campaign kind of paints him a in corner for these situations. If you build your campaign on inclusiveness and ending divisions, you could see why he wouldn't want to be seen as freezing out a right wing news outlet because of "politics" or "partisanship".

[Tangent: This and racism are the only two actual weakness I see in Obama's general election campaign. His narrative painting himself into a corner when it comes to strongly taking on the GOP and undercurrents of racism that still exist in a big way. Other than that, he's pretty much as good as we could hope for in a general election candidates ]

I see why his campaign did it, but I just don't think it was that smart to do so. I'm not sure how many votes are gained, as Move On pointed out, and you tend to harbor ill will from your own side when campaign operatives lie about your motives for going on the air.

And for the record... I am fully aware this whole debate doesn't have very much significance outside of dailykos and that world, but I found it interesting nonetheless. Oh yeah, and for those how cared about how the ACTUAL interview went, here are some pieces (Transcript here):

Monday, April 14, 2008

Meet the Press: how low can you go?

Wonder why our political discourse is so fucked up? Your Sunday round table on Meet the Press, arguably the most influential political show in the country:

  • Mary Matalin: Republican consultant, most recently worked for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign.
  • Mike Murphy: Republican consultant who don't know much about.
  • James Carville: Unabashed Hillary Clinton supporter who dropped this gem during the broadcast: "It's also fair to say this is probably the best, most courageous toughest presidential candidate that we're ever seen anywhere, anyplace in our lifetimes, OK?"
  • Bob Shrum: Professional loser of presidential campaigns, most recently John Kerry's loss in 2004.
It was good to see a panel with diverse opinions: one conservative republican, one hack republican(not sure where Murphy ranks), and two moderate DLCdemocrats. Well, it's a good thing they had plenty to agree on, you wouldn't want to get into a debate or anything like that. With minds like Bob Shurm and James Carville discussing what's best for the democratic nominee, who can we lose?

Sunday, November 18, 2007

The Joe Buck Disgusting Act of the Week: The CNN Las Vegas Debate

The Disgusting Act of the Week will be awarded periodically to whatever event/person best deserves Joe Buck's over the top outrage at a 2004 Randy Moss' touchdown celebration.

And the winner this week... CNN, for their Las Vegas Democratic Debate.

The debate itself was pretty uninteresting, with few good questions and pointed exchanges. That being said, I thought it was Obama and Richardson's best performance, John Edwards' worst, and more of the same lying and question dodging that we have come to expect from Hillary Clinton.
However what made this debate a disgusting act was both the audience, and the coverage that followed. When watching the debate on television, I noticed several odd things about the audience. First off, there were loud boos of both John Edwards and Barack Obama at points that really didn't make sense, and second, it they didn't sound like regular boos. As a fan of several sports teams who, well, have seen their fair share of boos, I know a normal sounding boo starts softer, and grows louder as it spreads through the crowd. These boos were different though, they sounded like they were coordinated, immediately at top volume, like you were flipping on a switch. It didn't seem to make too much sense until I read a diary by LV Pol Girl over at dailykos, who attended the debate and gave her own take.

The audience was basically divided into two sections. One side was UNLV, the well behaved section and the other section was the Hillary (oops, I meant the DNC) section. The DNC section is where I was seated and it was filled with Hillary supporters. The guy next to me said he was for Edwards and lied, because the only person he cheered for was Hillary. Loud, obnoxious, women were sitting behind me that talked throughout the debate and sneered "trial lawyer" every time Edwards spoke and called Obama "arrogant".
So the audience was predominantly pro-Hillary, but that was only one piece of the puzzle. In order to counter what had been over a week of bad press coverage based on the last debate and planted questions, the media needed to agree that Hillary had turned things around. Enter the CNN post debate team:
  • James Carville: Admitted Hillary Clinton supporter, sent out a fund raising letter for her campaign last year.
  • David Gergen: Former Bill Clinton adviser and confidante.
  • J.C. Watts: Former republican congressman (Your guess as good as mine why he's there)
And, in a truly shocking development, the panel loved Hillary.

"She really turned it around."
"She hit it out of the park."
"She fought back, but looked like a leader"

And in the end, the transformation was complete. After one week of questioning her status as the inevitable nominee, all it took was one night of dodging questions, packing the audience with your supporters then putting your supporters on tv as analysts to return to the race to the status quo. I guess the brain-dead media giveth, and the brain-dead media taketh away.

That was a disgusting act by CNN and it's unfortunate that we had it on our air live.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Mr. O'Reilly goes to Harlem...

He makes the shocking revelation that black people... can eat dinner just like... (Gasp!) white people.
And if that wasn't enough:

"There wasn't one person in Sylvia's(The Restaurant) who was screaming,
'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.'"

Like Don Imus, it shouldn't surprise people that Bill "Don't steal my hubcaps" O'Reilly said something racist and stupid, but I guess it's better that the media pays attention to this type of stuff several years late rather than not at all.

Update: I was talking to my dad about this earlier and I think he had the best take on it. He joked that could have been seen as a breakthrough in race relations in the 1920s and I think that goes a long way in explaining O'Reilly's world view.