I’m Often Wrong
Mar 26th, 2008 at 1:28 am by Chris
Perhaps it’s the late hour, or the drinks I had earlier which are likely tickling my naiveté bone, but at the moment I find myself looking at this picture and wishing that I wished I was surprised. That probably doesn’t make sense, but that’s what I have and I’m going to stick with it. I’m not going to assign the picture any particular relevance. I don’t really think there is any. Weird shit happens sometimes. When you’ve been a political junkie for your entire adult life, as well as decent portion of your adolescence, you come to expect weird shit in politics. What can I say, other than that some weird shit goes the extra 10,000,000,000 miles and really just puts the weird back into shit. Oy ‘n such.
Via some guy you’ve never heard of.
Update: Some analysis without the noodles.
This one is easier to figure out…
The devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know and it doesn’t matter which head you attach the bubbles to since it’s clear that both Scaife and Clinton could easily be thinking this.
well, I think this speaks volumes about the people involved in the race.
One person was raked over the shit and refused to toss a friend and mentor away even though this has caused some real troubles for his campaign and could conceivably cost him the race.
The other person is so desperate to win the race that she will sit down with a man that accused her husband of drug dealing, murder, accused her of being a lesbian, etc. and then try to denigrate her opponent for not throwing his friend and mentor away.
It really is right in front of you, but I guess you cannot or will not see it for what it is…
Steveeboy, for various reasons I’m trying to be a little extra cautious and, er, balanced right now. If it seems like I’m noodling around the edges of something, it’s because I am.
stevieboy, I’ve just come up with a theory…
Politics makes for strange bedfellows
Is Scaife any worse than the major main stream media outlets these days?
Perhaps Obama supporters haven’t figured out just how dishonest the media has become since their candidate was allowed a free ride for so long but those days have come to an end and they will see how bad things really have become.
Tune in on Sunday mornings on Fox to see Wallace’s Obama clock
“Perhaps Obama supporters haven’t figured out just how dishonest the media has become since their candidate was allowed a free ride for so long but those days have come to an end and they will see how bad things really have become.?”
The stupid, it burrrrrns!
White_n_az: I’ll answer your question; yes, Scaife IS worse than the major msm outlets. It’s wrong to swoon over McCain; it’s wrong to use subtle or overt sexism to slander Clinton; it’s wrong to give Obama a free ride (which I don’t believe has happened but I’m trying to play by your rules) but how any of those rates as morally equivellent to you and your hubby murdered Vince Foster, dragged his corpse across the street (I don’t know, it seems like that might have been noticed at the freakin’ White House) and dumped it in the park, you are drug dealers and you Madam First Lady, are a closeted lesbian who hates your husband and stays married only for political reasons is beyond me. Not all bad coverage is equally bad.
Barry, that’s awesome. I just tried to keep from laughing out loud so that the coffee I was drinking while I was reading your comment wouldn’t get all over my computer screen. It came out my nose instead.
I’m not in the room. I don’t know what’s going on.
On the other hand, I’m not in the room. I don’t know what’s going on.
I think obama is well aware of lame media, hence his refusal to appear on fox.
contrast this with big dog’s appearance on RUSH LIMBAUGH show before Tx primary.
and yes, Scaife is WORSE than MSM. I don’t recall the MSM fronting millions of dollars just to get the clintons as Scaife did with his little project.
I don’t recall MSM setting up entire magazines to do so…
ah, I get it now…
You guys think forget that the only people who eat up the CDS stuff is the people who want to believe it in the first place.
I think it’s far more insidious to take the main stream media outlets like say MSNBC who appear to be liberal and are so obviously not liberal that have done more damage than a nut case like Scaife.
You are obviously sleeping because last May, John McCain and Lindsey Graham went to Iraq, went shopping and talked about how the Baghdad market was just like any market in America…not mentioning that they were accompanied by 100 troops, 3 helicopters and marksmen. His credibility was so completely destroyed, I was convinced that his candidacy was dead.
How often does the media remind us of that?
NEVER - he’s still the maverick. He climbed back onto the ‘Straight Talk Express’ and no one mentions that he doesn’t talk straight.
There is no way that either Obama or Clinton will get reasonably fair coverage during the general election…No chance
Scaife is irrelevant to the larger notions of media coverage.
btw Steveeboy…
Big Dog was never on Rush…Rush played a tape of Big Dog
You really need to follow things more carefully.
white_n_az, I think you’re on to something there. I know Bob Somerby agrees with you - and yes, it’s more insidious.
As to editorial board meetings - Yes, I agree. She should have blown off the meeting so the paper could then trumpet her unwillingness to meet with them and maybe lose her a couple of hundred votes. I mean, it’s not as if she’s trying to win an election.
I wonder why sitting down with Richard Scaife is somehow more upsetting to some people than her working on health care issues with Newt Gingrich.
And I tend to agree with Susie. I’m not at all horrified by this. I’m just struck by the particular weirdness of it all. People have to put themselves through some awful, degrading shit when they’re running for president. Not they I feel especially bad for their overpriveledged, millionaire asses, but it’s undeniable nevertheless. She needs to win huge in PA and she can’t just blow off editorial board meetings, regardless of the sort of degenerate subhumans that might occupy those meetings.
FWIW - I just read (and don’t know that it’s true), that Obama had already met with the same editorial board of Scaife’s newspaper.
I think what it comes down to is that most Clinton supporters don’t really care that she met with Scaife…but Obama supporters think it is somehow an effrontery. This is just one of those things that really comes down to no matter what Hillary does is wrong and at that point, these people are trying to figure out some justification for saying it.
The reality is that Hillary actually made some peace and made some friends on the Republican side of the aisle (for better or worse). Not forgetting that it’s the Christian notion to turn the other cheek.
I suppose what is bothering me the most this election cycle is not the negativity but rather the lengths that people will go to spew the negativity over meaningless stuff. Does anyone really care that Carville compared Richardson to Judas? Does anyone really care that Powers called Hillary a monster? It goes on and on and on and on.
The media has been despicable and there is no hope that it will improve when there is only 2 candidates standing.
white_n_az. You are so right. No difference at all between you and your husband are drug-dealing murderers and soft coverage of McCain in Baghdad.
Jonah Goldberg just published a thoroughly worthless book which is nothing more than a 400 page diatribe conflating half truths and grossly exaggerated equivalencies that has been rightly mocked by the left. What’s really wrong with his tome “I Know You Are But What Am I?” – well for starters it’s the kind of thinking that leads one to say “Hitler and many Nazis were vegetarian health nuts; many modern liberals are vegetarian health nuts; therefore modern liberals are Nazis.”
You argue Scaife lied and said the Clintons were drug dealing murderers; MSNBC downplayed* the security measures necessary before John McCain could stroll through a market; therefore all media outlets are liars acting in a morally equivalent manner.
Sorry, no dice. There’s a world of difference between the two. Outright lying is different from unbalanced coverage
By the way, I believe the term msm is a right-wing trope that needs to be retired. What is the msm? I turn 50 tomorrow and remember a time when - in Chicago, the second largest city in the country at that time - there were 3 network channels, WGN, and PBS. Time and Newsweek covered the magazine niche. The NYT was the newspaper of record. In that environment the term msm carried weight.
A significant percentage of voting-age Americans today watch no network news, don’t read any major newspaper or magazine, and don’t listen to any national radio. Yet, Sean Hannity (one hour a night on a national broadcast), Rush Limbaugh (who fraudulently claims 20 million listeners – but still has millions of listeners), and Ann Coulter (a syndicated columnist who’s on TV more often than Ted Danson) all whine about the msm. If such a thing exists how are they not part of it? As the msm doesn’t exist, the msm is whatever you want it to be. Information is today so dispersed and comes through so many outlets we really can’t keep acting as though every one goes home and watches Walter Cronkite.
* MSNBC did point out the security measures. Their failing was one of balance. Security was downplayed, not ignored.