Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Forgotten nothing, and learned nothing

Go read today's gruesome Howler for John Judis's vote-suppressing WWTSBQ piece:

And if some voters didn't appreciate the potential breakthrough that Obama's candidacy represented, many in the Democratic primaries and caucuses did—and so did the members of the media and Obama's fellow politicians. And as Clinton began treating Obama as just another politician, they recoiled and threw their support to him.

Politicians, sure. That's their job. But "journalists" "threw their support"?

You mean -- gasp! -- the press is picking our President for us?

Sure, why not? Think back to 2000, 2004--What could go wrong?

Reason enough to die in the last ditch for Hillary, so far as I'm concerned. The Village is always wrong about everything.

NOTE It's said of Louis the XVI that he "forgot nothing, and learned nothing."

0
No votes yet

Comments

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

In the last ditch. I still have hope though. I think Hillary can pull it off if she gets strong numbers in the last remaining primaries.

I also think (hope) there will be a price to pay for cable news for their behavior during this primary (a behavior that will probably extend to the GE campaign).

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

i read the judis piece earlier today. one part struck me as odd, but i'm not bob somerby.

that part was:

[ex-heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson had once said about Muhammad Ali. "I was just a fighter," Patterson had said, "but he was history." Obama, too, was, and is, history—the first viable African-American presidential candidate. Yes, Hillary Clinton was the first viable female candidate, but it is still different.]

that same paragraph also struck bob somerby, one of my two weblog heros (the dear departed scott horton is the other), as odd,

but far more than that

it struck him as an exercise in journalistic incompetence of the highest order.

it provided somerby with one of his best posts in a while and another classic comment on journalistic misconduct and stupidity.

the paragraph at question for somerby was this one
(for convenience, from somerby's article, not judis'):

[JUDIS (continuing directly): My friend David Kusnet, Bill Clinton's former speechwriter, explained the difference to me by citing what ex-heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson had once said about Muhammad Ali. "I was just a fighter," Patterson had said, "but he was history." Obama, too, was, and is, history—the first viable African-American presidential candidate. Yes, Hillary Clinton was the first viable female candidate, but it is still different. Race is the deepest and oldest and most bitter conflict in American history—the cause of our great Civil War and of the upheavals of the 1950s and '60s. And if some voters didn't appreciate the potential breakthrough that Obama's candidacy represented, many in the Democratic primaries and caucuses did—and so did the members of the media and Obama's fellow politicians. And as Clinton began treating Obama as just another politician, they recoiled and threw their support to him. ]

my summary of that message from judis?

"hillary clinton, you're no more than an historical artifact; obama is the new messiah. you are in his way; you owe it to the nation to throw the fight."

talk about being treated as an "object", sexual or otherwise.

as an afterword, i'll note that this is the identical message i take from josh marshalll's piece of journalistic bombast refering to senator clinton's pursuit of the florida vores as "toxic":

"clinton is an "object" who is in the way of my preferences and happiness being maximized."

CMike's picture
Submitted by CMike on

The corporate media may not be satisfied with tipping the scales with biased reporting and commentary, news blackouts may be next. Here's an excerpt from the May 21, 2008 Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: ...What is she [Sen. Clinton] doing at this point? What is her end game now after she did not achieve what most people thought was necessary, an upset if a huge pro-Obama state like, say, Oregon last night?

WOLFFE: Well, I think the speech is a very unsubtle way to put pressure on the rules committee, the DNC rules committee which meets at the end of this month, and so you know, the question is—will it back fire?...

So it‘s hard ball, it‘s not very subtle, but I guess it‘s the last tactic they‘ve got to try and get the best deal they can out of this committee.

OLBERMANN: ...Last question, you said they‘re hardening the—the Clinton camp is

hardening their stance. What does that mean in terms of when this ends, because it is going to end and it is going to end in Senator Obama‘s favor

what does this mean in terms of what stops the Clinton campaign? Is it when reporters say—no more story here, we‘re going home?

WOLFFE: I think they‘ve been pretty explicit. They say repeatedly whether it‘s Senator Clinton or Howard Wolfson, if the Obama folks want to beat us, then they should go ahead and beat them...

elixir's picture
Submitted by elixir on

the John Judis piece contemplates but I do agree w/ FrenchDoc. I think HRC has a good chance of pulling this thing off through good showings in the final three primaries, muscling the Rules and
Bylaws Committee into recognizing FL/MI and seeing it through to the convention. Seeing it through to the convention provides time...the longer this primary goes on the more people see of Obama and see through the hype, the longer HRC gets to make her case, the longerJohn McCain can beat up on Obama.

I love this job!

Submitted by lambert on

I just went through the O list (non-neutral part of the A list) and... It's as if there's no campaign going on at all. It's ... It's .... It's like they're just a normal part of our famously free press now, except making less money and doing a lot more of their own typing. Quite the deal....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

koshembos's picture
Submitted by koshembos on

Judis translation into spoken language is as follows: Step I: opposition to a black candidate is a crime against humanity. Therefore, send Hillary to the Hague. Step II: McCain better go back to Arizona to chase illegal immigrant before we send him too to the Hague. Step III: President Obama by acclamation. (Actually why not King?)

FlipYrWhig's picture
Submitted by FlipYrWhig on

I thought that the Marshall piece was off the deep end (I know, I should stop being surprised). He started out reasonably enough, criticizing the Clinton campaign's rhetoric about disenfranchisement. OK, fine, reasonable people can disagree. Then out of nowhere at the very end he says that she's setting things up so that her supporters will feel like the nomination was stolen from her. Whether or not that's even true, how does it arise from the discussion leading up to that point? He wrote a damn PhD thesis. His advisor needs to call him out on that kind of acrobatics.

cal1942's picture
Submitted by cal1942 on

"And if some voters didn’t appreciate the potential breakthrough that Obama’s candidacy represented."

The candidate with the thinnest portfolio in history is a major candidate for the nomination to vie for the top job.

That's one helluva breakthrough.

captainjohnbrown's picture
Submitted by captainjohnbrown on

Judis has been stumping for Clinton harder than anyone who doesn't write for the Wire. You people are really eating your own now.

Cap'n John Brown

Submitted by lambert on

Here is the key sentence in the Howler's post:

... they recoiled and threw their support to him...

That is central problem and the point of the post, as I point out. Thanks for that Teamster article, it looks interesting.

I struck out the in-the-tankness -- it's so prevalent I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Check Howler for the problems with Judis post. It it, indeed, gruesome.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

jackyt's picture
Submitted by jackyt on

How fast do you think this Bunch Of Powerful Old White Males would get behind a presidential run of Charles Rangel, John Conyers, Michael Nutter, Cory Booker, etc.?

The reason Obama is the candidate of the BOPOWM is that, within that pretty brown wrapper, lies the heart of a White Elitist Male, just like them. He doesn't raise uncomfortable social justice issues. And there is nothing in his background to suggest he ever will.

"But he looks good!" "He SOUNDS good!" "And we get to preen our post-racial feathers and crow about how much Better and Wiser and More Enlightened we are than those nasty white working class voters... and Latinos... and LGBTs... and Asians... and dessicated old people... and, (oh yeah) African Americans whose concerns we really have no intention of addressing even if they do give our guy a nifty bump at the polls."

"And the beauty part? Since he fits right in up here on our elevated plain, we never have to worry he'll expect Us to reduce ourselves to a level playing field."

John Kerry said it all. "...because he's a black man." Of course, when Geraldine Ferraro said the same thing, it just proved she's a racist.

FlipYrWhig's picture
Submitted by FlipYrWhig on

I don't know if I'd go that far. But it's amazing to see just how much the Obama phenomenon is based on symbolism. He's symbolically important. What is he going to _do_, exactly? Be who he is, which will, like, make us make change, somehow.

What's the proof that he's liberal or progressive at all, beyond the symbolism that he's personally multicultural? Something beyond the "videotaped police confessions" bill from IL, please. I don't get it.

(IMHO, the biggest point in his favor is a negative -- he's not affiliated with the O'Hanlon/Pollack cadre.)

In any event, I'm sure that President Obama will end up getting pilloried in the lefty outlets, just the way B. Clinton was, for letting us all down with his caution, triangulation, and nicey-nice-making.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

all the more--he's status quo, like them, and doesn't ever agitate for any causes or issues.

(I cannot believe the Obama oppo people are running with RFK comments by Clinton now--that, and the McCain preacher bs, don't give me hope for the general at all...very weak fauxtrage, as usual--it's far more likely a crazed Obama supporter will try to shoot her.)