news

"Theft"? When it will require a Superdelegate coup to win -- mathematically it's her only chance -- that amounts to a theft, in my book.

I wouldn't be so antagonistic towards Hillary, but she has been the chameleon this entire campaign. In fact, at least since 2004. The only thing clear about Hillary is her ambition.

The Democratic destruction continues. Congratulations to the DLC.

On This Week, Republican candidate John McCain defends his flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts: He opposed them because they weren't combined with spending cuts.

But he would push through his own tax cuts, even without spending cuts.

Straight talk? Ha!

And you have to hear him defend his embracing of his own controversial pastor's endorsement. More straight talk there, too. Yep.

Yes I mock, though I think the nervous liar's giggle was probably genuine.

Video.

[Memo to George: I note that McCain isn't wearing a flag pin, either. So why didn't you ask that, too, if it's such an important issue?]

Watching the news online, it was clear what the debate story was today:

Washington Post television critic Tom Shales, in an April 17 article headlined "In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC," described the debate as "another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances." Shales added that the debate "dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia" and "seemed slanted against Obama."

Time magazine's Michael Grunwald, in an April 17 article headlined "The Democrats Play Trivial Pursuit," wrote, "Obama's memoir dripped with contempt for modern gotcha politics, for a campaign culture obsessed with substantively irrelevant but supposedly symbolic gaffes," and added, "Last night at the National Constitution Center, at a Democratic debate that was hyped by ABC as a discussion of serious constitutional issues, America got to see exactly what Obama was complaining about."

In an April 16 article on Editor & Publisher's website, Greg Mitchell wrote, "In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame."

You don't need to go to Daily Kos to find cries of assent to these assessments.

Greg Mitchell writes on HuffPo:

In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin -- while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.

Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of right-wing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopoulos. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued.

More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and -- you name it. Gibson only got excited complaining that someone might raise his capital gains tax.

The Philly Enquirer's poll has, at the time of this writing, about half of all views rating the questions as "terrible, a waste of time."

Even ABC admitted that the heat was on. As MSNBC noted:

By midafternoon Thursday, more than 15,600 comments were posted on ABC News' Web site, the tone overwhelmingly negative....

..."Why not have Paris Hilton moderate next time?" one poster wrote. One man repeated the word "bad" 48 times. A sampling found opinion was running against the network about 8-to-1.

Did the message sink into the skulls of Gibson and Stephanopoulos?

"The questions were tough and fair and appropriate and relevant," Stephanopoulos told The Associated Press. "We wanted to focus at first on the issues that were not focused on during the last debates."

The criticism comes with the territory, he said. "It's one more sign of how engaged people are over this election," he said.

Engaged on a higher level than ABC was willing to present, apparently.

It didn't help to learn that presumably George Stephanopoulos was throwing questions seeded by right-wing commentators.

But watch the NewsHour, and the story is all about the petty issues.

LINDA DOUGLASS: Well, certainly they expected the questions on Reverend Wright. Certainly they expected the questions on the statements that he made about small-town America being economically depressed and turning to guns and religion. They expected all of that.

But it was the relentlessness of it, the fact that they didn't get into health care, or gas prices, or college tuition, or whatever in the beginning that I think took them aback. They were prepared for many other kinds of questions.

And you could see that Obama himself was becoming irritated. But the one thing you can't do in a situation like this, if you are the candidate who feels aggrieved by how the moderators handled you, the one thing you cannot do is blame the press for the questions they ask. That never works as a tactic.

Enough about armchair quarterbacking. What about the facts?

MARGARET WARNER: So, Brooks, in defending himself, based on your analysis, did Obama stretch the truth in any way?

BROOKS JACKSON, FactCheck.org: Well, yes. One of the things for which we're criticizing him is that he said that, in regard to that lapel pin, the American flag lapel pin, he said, "I never said that I had refused to wear it."

Well, in fact, less than a year ago in Iowa, he told a TV interviewer that after 9/11 he had decided not to wear the pin because it had become, in his view, a substitute for true patriotism, which is upsetting a lot of people and being talked about.

So he's engaging in a little bit of rewriting his own history.

You really have to see the video where Brooks Jackson and Linda Douglass smirk with self-satisfied pride over their easy proclaimations as "the facts."

And then:

MARGARET WARNER: And, Dan, do the Obama people feel that some of these issues that were brought up last night, these personal issues or things he said or associations he's had, do they think they're really invalid or do they actually think these are potential vulnerabilities?

DAN BALZ: Well, I think they certainly recognize that the controversy over Reverend Wright is likely to be a problem in the general election. I think at this point they think they have weathered most of these in the nomination battle.

All of the polling that came out over the last few days shows no particular damage from the comments he made at the San Francisco fundraiser about how small-town Americans are bitter about their situation and cling to guns and religion and things like that.

I think they believe that -- I mean, I know they were quite worried when that erupted. I think they think that that has not been a serious problem.

Again, the Old Media are stuck in their Old Story. Even when they are the story. Even in the face of criticism, they insist upon focusing on trivia rather than on things that matter.

Lapel pins? Who "loves America more"? Puhleez! I'd have expected more from the NewsHour, but they were as lazy as ABC. Something to remember during the next pledge break.

Maybe it's just how the NewsHour is selling the news, but here's what we see:

First we get John McCain, opponent of the King holiday, proponent of the Confederate flag over South Carolina, pretending to be a McCain admirer.

Then we get Hillary Clinton, talking about steps backwards and how it is just as hard for her as it was for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

And we want to just vomit. What dreck. (What's worse is that we know that somehow, in some way, Clinton really has a progressive racial conciousness, but she simply has a serious problem with expressing any sort of authenticity.)

And then we get a snippet of Barack Obama, who's talking not about how Dr. King was such a remarkable America (which he was), but about Dr. King's message -- and how we are or are not living up to it.

Two panderers eager to kiss a dead man's ass, and one leader who takes up the dead man's message and challenges us.

So which candidate is the most presidential here?

[No transcript or audio here, save for the discussion after.]

3 recessions under Bush presidents. (3 Republican recessions, many would say.) But this one is the worst since the post-War period [audio].

Should we really be surprised?

He had been institutionalized for mental health ... by his own parents.

He was on mind-alterning prescription medication.

He pushed his girlfriend around, part of his "abusive" behavior.

He had a history of cutting himself.

He bought all four of his guns at one shop -- two of them just a few days before.

But what was the AP lead?

Steven Kazmierczak had the look of a boyish graduate student — except for the disturbing tattoos that covered his arms.

Yeah. Tattoos are the issue here. Right.

Let's also note that he had a computer (uh-oh) and was apparently drinking large quantities of energy drinks. He also played chess. (Ooooooh!)

He had served in the Army for six months (and current status not quite clear). He also "served as an officer in two student groups dedicated to promoting understanding of the criminal justice system."

He was also known to watch Oprah on weekday afternoons. (Okay, that part is made up. But those tattoos -- obviously that's where the story lies.)

I've always had very low tolerance for the talkbox channels. I never watch them, except maybe when I'm in a hotel, offline, and desperate for any timely news. The two exceptions are (1) This Week with George Stephanopolous, whose "round table" has the most entertaining, low-key horserace discussion (and whose A-B-C-D format makes it easy to TiVo past the nonsense blah-blah interviews), and (2) when there's an interesting political or news event happening. This year's campaign coverage, though, has really brought into high relief the 6 Rules of Bobbleheaded Punditry:

1. Keep talking. Whatever you do, keep talking. Don't pause. Especially when you finish a sentence. In fact, take all periods out of your copy.
2. Sound like you know what you're talking about. Use a quiet, authoritative tone. Remember Rule #1. Pauses betray an apparent uncertainty or may reveal your lack of ideas.
3. Look like you know what you're talking about. Alternately frown thoughtfully and raise your eyebrows occasionally for emphasis. If at a table, lean forward and tip your head slightly forward, forearms on the table. If standing, keep your elbows at your side but move your hands up and down, keeping time with your words. Extra points for coordinating with your eyebrows. If possible, hold a clipboard. (See Wolf Blitzer.)
4. Throw out a Factoid or a Spin Turd.
   • Factoid. It doesn't matter how accurate or relevant it is. We like factoids.
   • Spin Turd. (Advanced pundits only.) Make an outrageous claim that sticks to an undesired candidate. Note: These should be well rehearsed, easy on the tongue, and, whenever possible, coordinated with the Corporate Media Talking Points Committee. The extra work can pay off: Pundits adept at throwing out spin turds can enjoy fabulous careers in punditry. (See Ann Coulter.)

   Use of factoids combined with spin turds can prove very lucrative to the talented pundit.

5. Remember the names of the other bobbleheads. If you don't seem like part of the family or club, you come off as an outsider, and what could an outsider possibly know?
6. Don't pick your nose. Really really really. And whatever you do, don't eat the boogers. Wait until the commercial break. You never know when the camera might be on you.
7. Optional: Know what you're talking about. Caveat: While this can help with regards to bookings on PBS or NPR (though it's certainly not required for those buyers, either), it can get you into serious hot water with the big money market, including FoxNews. Use knowledge with extreme caution.

There you have it: The 6 Rules that can lead to a successful career as a well-paid Bobblehead.

Any others I may have missed?

Their chosen juggernaut -- the "inevitable" candidate -- has won New Hampshire to nix the ghosts of Iowa. Not only that, they get to have more high ratings from Americans tuning in to see what's what.

And, of course, more millions upon millions of paid political advertising.

Oh what a lovely election show!

Voters 18-24 watch less television, so they haven't heard the television media's admonition that they should not turn out to vote. Funny how things happen away from mass-distributed lowered expectations.

...the actual candidates try to get a word in edge-wise. Why did Wolf Blitzer feel he had to interrupt every answer? It's like only the questions mattered to CNN. They didn't care about the answers.

And what was with that last question about diamonds or pearls?

This wasn't a debate -- it was a group interview, CNN style. Meaning no questions of substance -- such as, "What is your healthcare plan?" And certainly no time for any answers of substance.

This was CNN trying to assert its alpha dog status over the politicians. All with the highest ethical standards, don't you know. (I.e., selling commercials.)

The post-debate show was like watching a post-game wrap-up. David Gergen, James Carville and company used just about every sports metaphor in the book. "Hillary Clinton was rested and ready."

What are they? Horses?

Is it any wonder we turn to the internet for real news? CNN's "debate" show was a joke. How sad for our country.