Jameel Jaffer and David Rivkin Discuss FOIA Lawsuit

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Watch David Shuster Make an Ass of Himself

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

It's not like there's no news left in the world to cover.

Dana Milbank Sucks At Journalism

Dana Milbank is always on MSNBC, yet he persistently manages to say nothing of substance. It's always safe and easy to spout off "conventional wisdom" and crack jokes about the topic of the day. Yet it never adds anything to the discussion, and it's always terribly shallow. Milbank continued to do what he does in the Washington Post today:

Next up in Obama's insomnia treatment was an acceptance speech by the previously unknown nominee, followed by the president-elect's own blend of convoluted and passive answers to questions...The whole thing might have ended in snores if [Chicago Tribune reporter John] McCormick hadn't piped up about Blagojevich.

Milbank will be chasing after this one like the O.J. and Ana Nicole stories. He just wants to be entertained with a sexy story. No time to report on agricultural policy and our bizarre farm subsidy problems, because that's no fun. Never mind that these people will be making important and complex decisions about our country's food and energy policies. Dana Milbank wants to be entertained.

UPDATE: See this previous post.

UPDATE II: Bob Somerby is a national treasure:

On Monday, Obama announced that his office’s “full review of this” would be withheld until next week, at Patrick Fitzgerald’s request. And Fitzgerald’s office confirmed the fact that they had made this request. But McCormack plowed ahead anyhoo, asking a question that plainly wouldn’t get answered. And then, on cable, the children started wailing, about Obama’s bad conduct.

Which part of “the information will be withheld until next week, at Fitzgerald’s request” don’t these life-forms understand?

The caterwauling was widespread on cable; for Digby’s account of one exchange, just click here. But as always, the silliest Villager was the Post’s Dana Milbank, who put his low IQ on display in this morning’s “Washington Sketch.” If the insider press is our dumbest elite, Milbank is its perfect town crier. Like Bush, he’s straight outta Skull and Bones. And as he neared the end of his “sketch,” he again seemed determined to prove it.

Classic Milbank! This is how the Post’s “sketch” artist described one part of yesterday’s session—an event at which Obama introduced his nominee for Secretary of Education. As always, Milbank found himself bored by the day’s dismal dullness:

MILBANK (12/17/08): Next up in Obama's insomnia treatment was an acceptance speech by the previously unknown nominee, followed by the president-elect's own blend of convoluted and passive answers to questions: "We're going to have to work through a lot of these difficulties, these structural difficulties that built up over many decades, some of it having to do with the financial industry and the huge amounts of leverage, the huge amounts of debt that were taken on, the speculation and the risk that was occurring, the lack of financial regulation, some of it having to do with our housing market, stabilizing that."

The whole thing might have ended in snores if McCormick hadn't piped up about Blagojevich.

Milbank began with a brainless jibe at the “previously unknown” Arne Duncan. In fact, Duncan has been head of Chicago’s public schools for the past seven years, though no one in Milbank’s circle has heard. Then, the crier took a familiar tack; he complained that Obama’s quoted answer was too “convoluted” —too long. In fairness, Obama’s answer did stretch to a punishing 71 words, and Village attention spans are quite short. At least Obama hadn’t used too many big words, the brainless complaint the Bonesman raised against dull, verbose and know-it-all Gore when the exceedingly tiresome fellow once tried to discuss his new best-selling book (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/30/07). Gore had used such terms as “the marketplace of ideas” and the ”exchange of goods and services”—and this had led to a long, loud complaint. Ponder the plight your nation faces when Boneheaded fellows of such low distinction control the shape of its discourse.

“The whole thing might have ended in snores if McCormick hadn't piped up about Blagojevich,” the Bonesman explained, helping us see his cohort’s sad culture. Again, the truth about this dullest elite: They’re constantly drowning in their own dismal dullness. Only the thrill of scandal/sex/wardrobe/personality tales rescues them from their own cosmic dullness. Big Dem pols who don’t offer such treats will be accused of using big words—of giving “convoluted answers.” Almost everything puts them to sleep. Low-income kids can be damned.

Yesterday, the nonsense was general all over cable, but no one is ever much dumber than Milbank. As he described McCormick’s Q-and-A, we got to peep inside the head of the Village’s emptiest Bonesman:

MILBANK: [T]he Chicago Tribune's John McCormick didn't want to talk basketball. He wanted to know about contacts that Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, had with disgraced Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

"John, John, let me just cut you off," Obama interrupted, "because I don't want you to waste your question." The president-elect said the "facts are going to be released next week”—when he, by random coincidence, will be enjoying Christmas vacation in Hawaii—and "it would be inappropriate for me to comment" before then. "So, do you have another question?"

McCormick tried to rephrase the question, to no avail. "John, John," Obama repeated, reproachfully. "I said, the U.S. attorney's office specifically asked us not to release this until next week."

Can you get dumber? We’re not sure. But try to grasp how bad it can get when these life-forms start offering snark. Again, Fitzgerald’s office confirmed the fact that they asked Obama to wait till next week before discussing Emanuel’s contacts. The Bonesman, though, interjected some “tude” into his account of this matter. He suggested that the release of the info next week was some sort of slick Obama trick, designed somehow to coincide with the gentleman’s Christmas vacation.

No, that doesn’t really make sense. But this is the Village’s Bonesman.

Let us repeat what we’ve told you before. There is no way to understand this group without understanding a basic fact: Your “press corps” is a D-plus elite—our slowest, dumbest professional cohort. For the record, we’ve been surprised by the way they’ve behaved in the ten days since the Blago tale hit. They’ve been dumber—and faker—than we would have dreamed. Nothing derails their sad culture.

Television Journalists Are Awful, And We Should All Be Embarrassed By Them

This is how many times they mentioned the word "lipstick" between Wednesday and Thursday:

CNN: 69

MSNBC: 100

Fox News: 98

This is how many times they mentioned Fannie Mae in the same time period:

CNN: 20

MSNBC: 11

Fox news: 20

Every four years, when we make an important decision that has world-wide consequences, all of our information gets filtered through a pack of idiots.

Cable News and Politics

Pew has conducted a new survey of the political leanings of cable news viewers:

CNN: 51% Democrats, 18% Republicans, 23% independents

MSNBC: 45% Democrats, 18% Republicans, 27% independents

Fox News: 33% Democrats, 39% Republicans, 22% independents

I'm actually a little surprised to see so many Democratic and Independent viewers at FOX.

Political Interference in the E.P.A. - Again

From The Los Angeles Times:

More than half of the scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency who responded to a survey said they had experienced political interference in their work.

The survey results show "an agency under siege from political pressures," said the Union of Concerned Scientists report, which was released Wednesday and sent to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson.

You can read the full report here (pdf).

This really should be a big story, but MSNBC is busy covering campaign strategy and FOX News is busy covering the candidates' appearances on WWE.

UPDATE: In any other administration, this would be a huge scandal. So would the earlier New York Times story about "Message Force Multipliers." Since when is it acceptable to doctor scientific information under the guise of an objective administrative organization? Since when is it acceptable to make false and misleading statements under the guise of seemingly objective retired generals? But above all, why do our journalists just not care anymore? Is it scandal-fatigue?

UPDATE II: Remember this?

Tim Russert Gets His Facts Backwards

Why do people respect this guy so much?

MSNBC Gets Its Facts Wrong on McCain

Things like this worry me:

On MSNBC Live, Mika Brzezinski said that Sen. John McCain "wants to eliminate the federal gas tax -- that's about 20 percent of the cost." Later, Monica Novotny said McCain is "proposing suspending the federal gas tax for the summer, potentially cutting prices by nearly 20 percent." In fact, the federal gas tax -- 18.4 cents per gallon -- comprises only 5.4 percent of the current average cost of regular gasoline.

Particularly since the press corps attends John McCain's birthday parties (seriously) and goes to informal barbecues at his house (watch the video).

In reality, McCain's plan will save the average family only $23, yet MSNBC is portraying it as some sort of miracle fix, with no mention of any down-side (we have to either cut funding to our already troubled infrastructure, or borrow billions from China and add to our already enormous national debt).

Olberman on Clinton and "NAFTA-Gate"

Keith Olberman on Hillary Clinton

Olberman on Clinton's 3A.M. Advertisements

Bhutto Assassinated

Benazir Bhutto was killed in a suicide attack this morning. Given my previous post about the excessive media coverage of campaign strategy and political horse race issues, maybe they'll slow down and explain the complex political situation in Pakistan now.

UPDATE: Nope. They'll always find a way to turn an issue back to the horse race.

Chris Matthews on Hillary Clinton - Part IV

From 1994:

I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for.

The polls of late have consistently showed Hillary Clinton leading all of the Republican candidates in head-to-head match-ups. Here are all the poll results from Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, Newsweek, FOX, CNN, etc. Nonetheless, Zogby recently conducted an online poll with dubious methodology that gave the opposite result of all the legitimate polls (including this Gallup poll conducted the same day).

It's an online poll. It's unreliable. It's a clear outlier. Got it?

Now, let's see how Chris Matthews covers this issue:

MATTHEWS (11/27/07): Time for the Hardball “Big Number,” that tells a big story. Tonight, our “Big Number” is the number five. That’s the number of Republican presidential candidates that Hillary Clinton trails in the November match-ups, according to a new Zogby poll—Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and, believe it or not, Mike Huckabee. That’s five, count them, five Republicans all now beating, yes, Hillary Clinton in the match-up for next November. It’s tonight’s “Big Number.”

This guy really wants to see Hillary Clinton lose.

Part I: "Chinese" Clapping
Part II: "I hate her"
Part III: "Women with needs"

UPDATE:

FOX News Alert: "Clinton Loses to All Top GOP Candidates in Direct Match-Up"

I wonder if these people realize how ridiculous they are.

Chris Matthews on Hillary Clinton - Part III

From 1994:

I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for.

Today:

Matthews: Let's go back to women with needs. Women with needs are Hillary's great strength. Women who don't have a college degree, women who don't have a lot of things going for them. May not have a husband, may have kids, have all kinds of needs with day care, education, minimum wage. Will Oprah help with them to move to Barack Obama?

Julie Mason Houston Chronicle: Well, they're looking more for issues than they are for a celebrity endorsement. I don't think it's a celebrity endorsement from Oprah or from Bill Clinton, not that he's a celebrity, but you know what I'm saying. I don't think they move votes. I think they bring attention, I think they bring TV cameras, but those particular women are more concerned with health care and other issues than they are with what Oprah says ...

Matthews : (angry, nasty) OK let's get straight. Don't ever say Bill Clinton doesn't bring votes. If it weren't for Bill there wouldn't be a Hill. The idea that he doesn't give her star quality is INSANE

Julie Mason: (startled) I'm not saying he ...

Matthews: He IS her star quality.

Julie Mason: I'm not saying, he doesn't bring votes but if you were undecided...

Matthews:(abrupt) Ok. ... Thank you Matt.

Julie Mason:... I don't think Hillary..er Bill Clinton ...

Matthews: I know I caught you off guard there.

Julie mason: ...would bring you in.

Matthews: I was too tough on you there, but I know I'm right. Anyway, Matt ... just like Hillary I know I'm going to win.

Part I: "Chinese" Clapping
Part II: "I hate her"

Chris Matthews on Al Gore - Part II

Chris Matthews on Al Gore in 2001 and before:

He doesn’t look like one of us. He doesn’t seem very American, even.

He's taking up something rather unconventional, the three-button male suit jacket. I always—my joke is, “I'm Albert, I'll—I'll be your waiter tonight.” I mean, I don't know anybody who buttons all three buttons, even if they have them. What could that possibly be saying to women voters, three buttons? ... Is there some hidden Freudian deal here or what? I don't know, I mean, Navy guys used to have buttons on their pants. I don't know what it means.

Chris Matthews on Al Gore today (via Digby):

Michael, Michael, there's a big difference between what happened to Al Gore and John Kerry. John Kerry got hit unfairly by the Swift Boats attacking his service to his country. They conflated his opposition to the war when he came back which we can all argue about, and his service to his country which is not really arguable. They trashed him.

But in terms of Al Gore, he's the one who said he created the internet, he's the one who put out the word that he's the subject or the role model for Love Story, that he pointed the country's attention to Love Canal. He stuck himself into that story.

And when Marty Peretz's daughter wrote that story in Vanity Fair a couple of months ago, I'm sorry, she didn't make the case. Gore got himself in those problem areas by vanity and showing off an trying to make himself cool. But John Kerry got unfair treatment. I think it's a big difference guys.

Crowley: that may be so, but it's not how many Democrats feel.

CM: Well, why would expect a partisan to think anything more than partisan? That's what partisans think? Of course they think they were rooked. Everyone who loses an election thinks they were rooked and they blame it on the umpire.

Crowley: That's the audience they're speaking to.

CM: Yeah, well how about getting into the land of truth and understanding?

Wow. Let's take a look at those three examples Matthews just used right there.

1. "he's the one who said he created the Internet": Wow, this meme will never die as long as we have "journalists" like Chris Matthews. Al Gore did not claim that he personally created the Internet. He was talking about his initiatives in the Senate that helped enable the growth of the Internet: "when few people outside academia or the computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet, and he sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic)." Although his phrasing was awkward at the time, anyone with a brain could tell what he was actually saying.
2. "he's the one who put out the word that he's the subject or the role model for Love Story": This meme was dead-wrong 10 years ago, and it's dead-wrong today. Here's what happened. On a 1997 plane ride, Al Gore was in the press section, "swapping opinions about movies and telling stories about old chums" to the reporters. Gore's "old chums" included Eric Segal (the author of Love Story) and actor Tommy Lee Jones. Gore told one of these reporters that Segal had told some Tennessee reporters that the characters in Love Story were based on him and his wife. It turns out that the Tennesse paper itself did say that, but it was later retracted as a misquote. What Segal actually told the reporter (but which got garbled by the reporter) was that one of the characters in Love Story was based upon both Al Gore and Tommy Lee Jones. All Al Gore did was accurately remember what was reported in the Nashville Tennessean. "Journalists" like Chris Matthews, however, have endless mangled this and beaten it into some twisted narrative of Al-Gore-the-liar.
   
3. "that he pointed the country's attention to Love Canal": Once again, Chris Matthews is wrong. This entire story stemmed from a misquote of Al Gore, which was later corrected. What Al Gore said was that he had spoken to a girl from Toone, Tennessee in the 1970s about a problem with toxic waste in Toone. Afterwards, he called for a congressional hearing and investigations, looking "for other sites like that." He then became aware of the situation in Love Canal. Gore then said that Toone "was the one that started it all." The Washington Post misquoted him as saying "I was the one who started it all," when the transcript shows he said "that was the one that started it all" (clearly referring to Toone, which prompted the congressional investigation and hearings). The Washington Post later corrected this misquote, but not before the meme of Al-Gore-the-liar had spread like wildfire.
   

So there you have it. Chris Matthews is a shitty journalist. But what really got me was how he got all puffed up at the end, as if people who report on the facts are "partisans," while he rules "the land of truth and understanding."

This is the kind of horseshit journalism we can all look forward to in 2008 unless people start calling Matthews out.

BONUS: More "truth and understanding" from Chris Matthews


UPDATE: Michael Crowley, who weakly agreed with Chris Matthews in the above exchange, was apparently just as bad as Matthews (eh, maybe not that bad) in the 2000 election.

UPDATE II: Media Matters just put out a story about this awful Chris Matthews segment, and provides some examples of how Chris Matthews pushed these awful memes back in 1999 and 2000 (and beyond, up to this very day).

Here We Go Again

Back in 1999-2000, the media created a narrative of Al Gore the liar. Things such as his non-existent claim of having invented the Internet took over the major news networks as a major focal point of their presidential politics discussions. It became the "conventional wisdom."

Hillary Clinton recently spoke at her alma mater Wellesley, and made the following comments:

The world class faculty and staff who push you and challenge you, those late nights and long lunches where you challenge each other and learn from each other, the camaraderie that develops when smart, ambitious young women come together in a community of learning. In so many ways, this all women's college prepared me to compete on the all boys' club of presidential politics.

(APPLAUSE)

This was a place where you could try out all different kinds of leadership styles, where you could ask for critique and support from your friends and the faculty with whom you had an ongoing relationship. It was a place that truly did prepare women to make the best choices that we thought were right for our own lives.

Nothing sensational here. She absolutely did not say that people were picking on her because she is a woman. Nor did she say that people should vote for her because she is a woman (in fact, she's explicitly said the opposite). All she said was that the "all women's college" (it is) gave her the leadership skills to compete on the "all boys' club of presidential politics" (she is the only female among 17 contenders, and the first really serious female contender ever - this statement is simply an accurate description).

Nonetheless, there is a new narrative about how Hillary Clinton is playing "the gender card." The implication is that she's either a wimp, or unfairly using her gender as a shield.

According to MSNBC's Chris Matthews, this is an "anti-male thing," and "she should just lighten up on this gender -- 'the boys are coming to get me' routine."

According to MSNBC's Tucker Carlson:

TUCKER CARLSON: She clearly is playing the gender card -- "You can't hit a girl."

[...]

Women are angry at men in a lot of ways. They don't say much about it, but they are.

BUCHANAN: Holy smokes.

CARLSON: And she's pandering to that resentment and anger, and it's wrong.

PRESS: I think men have a reason to be angry at women based on what Lorena Bobbitt did.

CARLSON: Well, I couldn't agree with you more. No man would ever defend the corollary. But women are like, "Oh, I understand why Lorena did that." I mean, they're really mad. And she's taking advantage of it.

According to the New York Times' Maureen Dowd, "Sometimes when Hillary takes heat, she gets paranoid and controlling. But this time she took the heat by getting into the kitchen."

According to FOX News' Mort Kondrake:

This idea of using this gang of theme and the gender card that she is playing may work in the Iowa caucuses. And her staff says this is all about Iowa, and something like 55 percent of the Iowa caucus goers are, apparently women. So if she can get the lion's share of them and split up the guy vote, then she obviously wins.

But I think it is very unattractive for a general election candidate, who wants to be the Commander in Chief of the free world, to be saying 'They're ganging up on me!' I mean, this is the NFL. This is not Wellesley versus Smith in field hockey.

However, the most egregious and ridiculous distortion came from ABC News. After Nancy Pelosi explicitly disagreed with this narrative, ABC ran the horrible headline "Pelosi: Clinton Camp Played Gender Card." Even though that was the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Pelosi said (go ahead and read the article itself if you don't believe me). To highlight their shitty journalism, ABC included the following graphic:


When did the retards take over network news?

Moreover, who will point out the seriously flawed narrative at play here? At MSNBC, it seems unlikely that any of their talking heads or newsmen will say anything. If anything, Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, and Chris Matthews have proven that they will do the opposite. The only liberal talking-head over there is Keith Olberman (despite Bill O'Reilly's claims that NBC is "in the Democratic party's pocket"). He might say something, but he has a limited audience. Over at FOX, I wouldn't recommend holding your breath waiting for such coverage. Sean Hannity, etc. are gonna hit the "I'm a girl" meme pretty hard, and the only hope over there is that an invited guest will point out the insanity at play here. Over at CNN, I don't suspect you'll see much coverage, either. Instead, they might (at best) cover it with their usual he-said-she-said reporting ("Some say Clinton is playing the gender card... others disagree"). You can probably expect the same from major newspapers, if anything at all (it's also worth noting that they probably have less influence on these narratives than the television shows). Although they're already proving themselves to be awful at covering this.

The Wall Street Journal pushes the "gender card" meme:

According to The Politico, a "debate" is "churning in feminist circles, where some women's activists said she had every right to invoke sexism and gender stereotypes as a defense on the campaign trail--and predicted that this tactic will prove effective against fellow Democrats and against a Republican, if she is the general election nominee"

The New York Times:

Shortly after the Democratic debate, when Mrs. Clinton came under attack, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign posted a video on her Web site called “The Politics of Pile On” that showed short clips of the men at the debate.

On Thursday, Mrs. Clinton went to her alma mater, Wellesley, and said, “In so many ways this all-women’s college prepared me to compete in the all-boys’ club of presidential politics.”

The same day, her campaign sent out a fund-raising appeal condemning the men’s actions at the debate and saying, “Hillary’s going to need your help.”

Mrs. Clinton was swiftly criticized on the Internet and by some female columnists for wanting to have it both ways, projecting herself as a strong leader but then complaining of mistreatment by men.

This was one of the more maddening treatments. First, the NYT describes the video as showing "short clips of the men at the debate." That is an absolutely horrible description of the video, transparently intended to create the impression that the video is about gender. It's not. You can watch it here.

The thing is that it's so obviously not about gender. Nowhere does the word "man," "woman," "gender," "male," or "female" appear. Her point was simply that her opponents had recognized her as the frontrunner (she is) and started to go after her (they did - as anyone who watched the debate realizes). This was not about gender, but about making her opponents look like they're playing catch-up. Her opponents just all happen to be men.

Second, her remarks at Wellesley (as I've repeatedly said) obviously do not amount to "playing the gender card."

Third, I haven't seen this fund-raising letter, but if all the New York Times can cite in support of its narrative is that it condemned "the men's" (read: her opponents, who all happen to be men) actions, then it seems like a pretty thin branch on which to hang one's coat.

Finally, it's not "some female columnists" "on the Internet." It's horrible articles like this one that reinforce and spread these horrible narratives. It's not "some people" and it's not "the conservative media." It's awful, lazy, careless journalists like this one.

UPDATE: Has anyone seen any coverage of Hillary Clinton's newly released climate and energy plan? I haven't (not outside the world of blogs, at least). This seems like the kind of substantive issue that people should be writing and arguing about (rather than her "gender card," her "Chinese" clapping, or how much she tips at a restaurant). If you see any serious coverage, please pass it along.

UPDATE II: A recent Marist poll indicates that these empty narratives might be taking their toll in New Hampshire.

Tucker Carlson on Hillary Clinton

Here is Tucker Carlson's take on Hillary Clinton:

TUCKER CARLSON: I notice married people, married men and married white men, getting more extreme, despise her. Why is that? I‘ll tell you why. Because she gives off the feeling that she despises them. If you give the voters the feeling you don‘t like them, they won‘t like you back.

Does this really pass for journalism these days? Tucker Carlson is unable to cite anything to back up his proposition, so he retreats to some "feeling" that she magically "gives off." I'm certainly no shill for Hillary Clinton, but this is clearly horse-shit journalism at its worst.

Chris Matthews on Al Gore - Part I

More shitty journalism from Chris Matthews, this time from back in 1999 (via Daily Howler):

MATTHEWS (11/12/99): You know, there's been a lot of talk about the new costuming of Al Gore. You know, he used to wear blue suits like I do—or gray suits. Now he's wearing these new olive suits. He's taking up something rather unconventional, the three-button male suit jacket. I always—my joke is, “I'm Albert, I'll—I'll be your waiter tonight.” I mean, I don't know anybody who buttons all three buttons, even if they have them. What could that possibly be saying to women voters, three buttons?

DIMITRIUS: Well, I—I think that—

MATTHEWS: Is there some hidden Freudian deal here or what? I don't know, I mean, Navy guys used to have buttons on their pants. I don't know what it means. Go ahead.

DIMITRIUS: No, I—I—I think actually that Al's probably read the—our second book that's about to come out that talks about the different colors, that, particularly males can wear in their suits. We talk about how olive green, dark green is—is much more approachable, whereas, your dark blue and your black—

MATTHEWS: Right. Is that why Peter Pan wore green?

DIMITRIUS: Could be. Could be.

MATTHEWS: How does my mind work that way?

DIMITRIUS: But you know, the, the three-button image is something that—you know, if I were working with Al—

MATTHEWS: Right.

DIMITRIUS: I'd say, “You know, that's got to go because that is something that—that we know doesn't work very well.”

MATTHEWS: What's that?

DIMITRIUS: Just the—the three-button down, you know, the—the wider—the wider coat that's not as—as form-fitting. You know, I think he's attempting to look perhaps less intimidating to women than he did in the darker suits.

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

DIMITRIUS: Certainly, that's the way it's come across.

[...]

MATTHEWS: What do you think? Does it work for you? Which Al do you like? The old Al, the new Al, the private Al, the public Al? What do you want—what do you like here?

DIMITRIUS: Well, I tell you, look-wise, the new Al—the new Al, I think is going to make a lot of points with women. In that one interview that they had—

MATTHEWS: Right. We're looking at him now with the golf shirt here. Yeah.

DIMITRIUS: Right. With Bryant Gumbel, I thought was fascinating because he did look like he was right out of central casting—

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

DIMITRIUS: —like he had just come off of a movie set. He's got a very—

MATTHEWS: He looks like he just got a new movie out. In fact, now all he needs is that designer stubble, you know, like George Stephanopoulos puts on every Sunday, you know, about two days' growth of beard. Maybe with George, it's a half a day's growth, but it's two days with most people. What—what do you make of that. Is this part of the Hollywood scene to look more Michael Douglas?

DIMITRIUS: I—oh, I think so. If you look, too, it looks as though he's lost a little bit of weight.

MATTHEWS: Yeah, that's—

DIMITRIUS: He's got a much more chiseled face.

MATTHEWS: Well, you know what? I don't need any advice to do that. But thank you for joining us. Jo-Ellan Dimitrius, I want to thank you.

As the Daily Howler points out, "For the record, Matthews wasn’t kidding when he suggested that he 'always' tells his waiter joke. He told the hilarious joke on Hardball on November 2, 4, 10, 12 and 24, as the mocking of Gore rumbled on." I weep for the future. It seems like Chris Matthews is going to be covering Hillary Clinton like he did Al Gore.

Chris Matthews on Hillary Clinton - Part I

Chris Matthews is a perfect example of what's wrong with talking head journalism today. Instead of talking about the substance of any of these issues, Matthews devolves into discussions of Clinton's "Chinese" (???) clapping (more on Matthews's clapping coverage here and here).

For example, Matthews looks at Clinton's position on limited licenses for illegal aliens (which I wrote about here), and all he sees is this: "when you read the text here, it's like blah, blah, blah, blah, blah."

Matthews has also been pushing the "gender card" meme pretty hard. When Clinton spoke to her alma mater Wellesley, she made the following comments:

The world class faculty and staff who push you and challenge you, those late nights and long lunches where you challenge each other and learn from each other, the camaraderie that develops when smart, ambitious young women come together in a community of learning.

In so many ways, this all women's college prepared me to compete on the all boys' club of presidential politics.

(APPLAUSE)

This was a place where you could try out all different kinds of leadership styles, where you could ask for critique and support from your friends and the faculty with whom you had an ongoing relationship. It was a place that truly did prepare women to make the best choices that we thought were right for our own lives.

Nothing sensational here. She absolutely did not say that people were picking on her because she is a woman. Nor did she say that people should vote for her because she is a woman (in fact, she's explicitly said the opposite). All she said was that the "all women's college" (it is) gave her the leadership skills to compete on the"all boys' club of presidential politics" (she is the only female among 17 contenders, and the first really serious female contender ever - this statement is simply an accurate description). However, when you pass that through the Chris Matthews filter, it turns into an "anti-male thing." According to Matthews (who may or may not have read the original transcript), "she should just lighten up on this gender -- 'the boys are coming to get me' routine."

Matthews has also tackled such issues as the way she laughs, and the way she talks. He's even devoted a segment to speculating about the candidates' Halloween costumes, and another criticizing Mitt Romney's burger-flipping skills.

UPDATE: More shitty journalism from Chris Matthews (here), who just won't quit with this "Chinese" clapping crap.

Clinton, Immigration, Clinton, and Carlson

During the "lightning round" of the recent Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton was asked a question about Eliot Spitzer's New York plan that would allow illegal aliens to obtain limited drivers' licenses. Clinton responded that, although she did not think that was the best way to handle the issue, she understood that, in the face of our failure to achieve comprehensive national immigration reform, this could serve as a remedial measure that would get "people to come out of the shadows." Leaving the wisdom of such programs aside, her answer seemed perfectly clear to me at the time.

In all these past debates, the candidates have been evasive about various issues. I've watched these things in frustration as candidates would bob and weave, change the subject, and start talking about Republicans or socialism, or whatever it is they preferred to be arguing against. Clinton was particularly slick about this, and it frustrated me how the moderators and commentators largely ignored it. Maybe they'd back up and ask for a clearer answer to their particular question, but nobody made a big deal about it. That's why it surprised me so much when all the talking heads chose this answer to jump all over her. All this time, they've ignored legitimate evasiveness and outright lies by the candidates. But now, when a candidate adds nuance in a response to a complicated question, everyone gets confused and outraged that she didn't give a quick yes/no answer.

Anyone who's watched the network news in the past week knows what I'm talking about. On top of the usual talking heads, the other Democratic contenders also portrayed this as a case of double-talk (EDWARDS: "Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago;" OBAMA: "I can't tell whether she was for it or against it. And I do think that is important. One of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face").

Bill Clinton responded to this phenomenon:

"The point I'm here to make to you is whoever you're for, this is a really big election. We saw what happened the last seven years when we made decisions in elections based on trivial matters. When we listened to people make snide comments about whether Vice President Gore was too stiff.

"And when they made dishonest claims about the things that he said that he'd done in his life. When that scandalous Swift Boat ad was run against Senator Kerry. When there was an ad that defeated Max Cleland in Georgia, a man that left half his body in Vietnam. And a guy that led several departments ... with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden because he dared to vote against the president's version of the Homeland Security bill. Most Americans still don't know the truth. The president was against the Homeland Security Bill for 8 1/2 months.

"And Karl Rove told him they were going to lose the 2002 election unless the American people were scared about terror again. So they decided to be for a bill they opposed. And they put a poison pill in it. That bill was designed by the president to take the job rights away from 170,000 federal employees that had no access to secure information, no access to secure technology. No business being treated like CIA. We need to be able to fire CIAs. .. But we don't need to treat secretaries at FEMA that way. The whole thing was a scam.

"So Max Cleland said, I didn't go to Vietnam and leave one arm and two legs to come home and hold my job by stripping the job rights of 170,000 good, hardworking Americans. I don't want to do it. So they put an ad on comparing him to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Why am I saying this?

"Because, I had the feeling that at the end of that last debate we were about to get into cutesy land again. Ya'll raise your hand if you're for illegal immigrants getting a driver's license. So, we then let the Republicans go ahead saying all the Democrats are against the rule of law.

"I think it's fine to discuss immigration. We should. I believe immigration needs to be discussed. And it's fine for Hillary and all the other Democrats to discuss Governor Spitzer's plan. But not in 30 seconds, yes, no, raise your hand. This is a complicated issue. This is a complicated issue.

"So do I hope you vote for my wife? You bet I do. It'd be good for America, and good for the world. But, more than that I came here to tell you today, don't you dare let them take this election away from you. This belongs to you.

"Don't be diverted, don't be divided. Thank you ... "

Obvious conflicts in interest aside, I think that the point he's making here is a solid one: political pundits focus in on soundbites and allow them to turn into major issues (often despite their dishonest or misleading nature, and always omitting any trace of nuance). You get the candidates to give simple yes/no, for/against statements to complicated issues, and then you pounce with oversimplified soundbites and campaign ads.

Political hack Tucker Carlson, however, decided to pick up on (Bill) Clinton's remarks, transform them into an oversimplified soundbite, and prove them to be true:

The defense of Hillary Clinton crossed over from the strident to the ridiculous, according to the AP prospective first gentleman compared his wife‘s experience in last Tuesday‘s Democratic debate to the experience of John Kerry with the swift boat veterans for truth in the ‘04 presidential campaign. Was Bill Clinton serious? Did that comparison do more harm than good to his wife‘s run for the presidency?

[...]

Bill Clinton says his wife is swift boated. She is being criticized by both parties for position on giving driver‘s licenses to illegal aliens. They say she‘s a flip flopper. Could both parties be wrong?

[...]

Swift boating, it used to describe riding the rivers of Vietnam in search of the enemy now part of the American political lexicon particularly on the whiney left. It refers to group of former soldiers, sailors and marines called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who according to Democratic Party mythology unfairly kept John Kerry from taking his rightful place in the White House in ‘04.

So when Bill Clinton in speech to the postal workers union compared the treatment his wife received after waffling her way through last week‘s debate to swift boating, some wondered whether the Clinton campaign was cracking under the pressure of being the frontrunner. Or was trotting out the defense to defend his poor piled upon wife smart politics?

[...]

It‘s cry baby politics, it‘s woe me, how dare you attack me, that‘s the M.O. that we saw for eight years while the Clintons were in Washington. And it‘s also - it is though. Everyone is mean to me, oh, it‘s bias. You don‘t like me because of my politics, for ever it‘s ignoring the validity of the central question. What is your position on driver‘s license, I still don‘t know what her position is.

Coupled with the recent misleading claims about Clinton playing "the gender card," it seems like the media pundits are creating a narrative where Clinton is some sort of weak front-runner who complains everytime somebody criticizes her. All of this, mind you, has been based on a single sentence about presidential politics being an "all-boys club" (note: she's the only female among 17 presidential candidates, and that statement was true), and a single sentence by Bill Clinton using the Swift Boat advertisements as an example to make a larger point.

UPDATE: It looks like there are plenty of other news outlets that are more than happy to pass this oversimplified and inaccurate meme along.

The New York Daily News:

Democratic White House candidates ridiculed Bill Clinton Tuesday for suggesting they were trying to sink Hillary Clinton's bid with slimy Swift boat-style attacks.

...

Bill Clinton theorized the recent Democratic debate in Philadelphia, in which Hillary Clinton was criticized for zigzagging on Gov. Spitzer's controversial driver's license plan, veered dangerously close to intraparty character assassination.

The New York Post (big surprise):

The rebukes came after Bill took a swipe at his wife's rivals. He likened recent Democratic attacks against his wife to a "scandalous" 2004 ad by John Kerry's fellow swift boat Vietnam veterans, questioning the candidate's military valor.

CBS' The Early Show:

HANNAH STORM (anchor): What do you make of Bill Clinton criticizing Hillary Clinton's Democratic rivals, saying they were swift-boating her?

However, it looks like Bill O'Reilly has had the journalistic integrity to see through this one, even when being baited by Hannah Storm:

O'REILLY: No. I think they make it up. You know, it's -- and I do this because they make stuff up about me. They make stuff up about any controversial figure. So, they're sitting around going, "What can we say about Bill Clinton?" We tracked it yesterday, and we couldn't find any Swift boat reference that Bill Clinton --

STORM: So you're saying he never said it?

O'REILLY: I don't know. I couldn't find it. I didn't report it. I couldn't find it. I had a segment last night on The Factor. I couldn't find it.

STORM: What's Barack Obama's stance, then?

O'REILLY: I don't know.

STORM: Because he's criticizing Bill -- he's taking on Bill Clinton.

Three cheers for not buying in to rumors.