AND MICHAEL MAKES THREE! The Outlook Two named actual namesas the Kinsley Three showed you real squalor: // link // print // previous // next //
MONDAY, JUNE 9, 2008
AND MICHAEL MAKES THREE: In Sundays New York Times, Michael Kinsley explained why Clinton didnt win the Dem nomination. In the process, he made it three about the way your press corps actually functions. In case you ever believed the things your children read in their civics texts, here is Michael, explaining the way your mainstream press corps actually plays you:
Last week, Richard Cohen said much the same thing (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/4/08). According to Kinsley, Clintons comment about Kennedys assassination was willfully misinterpreted to suggest that she was wishing that fate on her opponent, Barack Obama. Duh! His colleagues didnt believe Clinton meant that, Kinsley says. But so what? They said it all the same.
If engineers toyed with basic facts that way, theyd end up in prison. Theyd belong there.
It would be hard to imagine more squalid conduct, but Kinsley doesnt bat an eye as he describes itas he seems to say its OK when journalists make the nastiest possible statements, knowing their statements are false. And with this statement, Michael makes it three. He joins John Judis and Richard Cohen in a public display of true squalor:
But then, weve told you this, year after year: They dont believe the things they tell youthe things they tell you as a group, reading scripts which are well-understood. (For example, they didnt believe all that sh*t they told you for two solid years about Gore.) Many people cant believe that such a remarkable thing could be true. But dont believe us! Let Kinsley tell you! (And Cohenand Judis. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/22/08 and 5/23/08) At this point, the commissars dont even feel the need to disguise their cohorts astounding misconduct. And dont worry: Housebroken house-boys like Kevin and Josh wont mention what Michael has said.
Meanwhile, as Kinsley explained what his cohort does, two writers in the Posts Outlook section did a very constructive thingsomething Big Journos dont do.
One of the two is a college studentSarah Odell, a rising junior at Wellesley. In her piece, she said she became a feminist in the past year as she watched the coverage of Clinton. In the following passage, she does the thing that E. J. Dionne and Ruth Marcus (among others) simply wont do. Omigod! When Odell complains about media gender-trashing, she names an offender. By his name!
Can you spot the forbidden conduct? Were pleased to state that much-maligned Linda Hirshman, in her own Outlook piece, broke the same Hard Pundit Rule:
What law did Odell and Hirshman break? Of course! They actually named the names of big journalists who gender-trashed Candidate Clinton! In Matthews case, this has been going on for years, involving quite a few women other than Clinton. (Elizabeth Holtzman, come on down! You too, Mary Boyleand the early, feisty Norah ODonnell.) But as weve recently shown you (several times), pseudo-liberals inside the press corps never name the Big-Time Colleagues who gender-trashed Clinton during this race. They just keep forgetting to do that! Indeed, to see Michelle Goldberg avoid naming names, just read this mess at The New Republic, in which, at one point, were told this:
In fairness, no one spent hours dissecting Clintons cleavage; since people like Goldberg dont plan to name names, they can play the fool for readers by over-stating some press corps offenses. But in a piece which runs 3000 words, Goldberg never remembers to name the name of any journalist who behaved in this manner. She does type the name of Gloria Steinem as she bats the silly old lady around. But she forgets to name the names of the people who apparently engaged in this sort of conduct:
Playing by the rules of the tribe, Goldberg refers to journalistic insultswithout ever naming any journalists! In wonderfully typical fashion, the one name she finally does dare name is that of a well-known Republican operative. In the process, she gives a warm, understanding tongue-bath to unfairly-maligned CNN:
Finally, Goldberg screwed her couragenaming Castellanos, a GOP hit-man, and absolving CNN in the process! (And rolling her eyes at the distress of those Clinton supporters, who cant even tell the story right.) By the way, Castellanos didnt kind of call Clinton a bitch; the gentleman called her a bitch, good and proper. (Throwing in white makes Goldbergs claim technically accurate.) But dont worry! Youll see indications of no distress from a cold inside player like Goldberg. She follows the law of the clan to the T. No names of big colleagues permitted!
The Outlook Two taught a lesson on Sunday: You can name the real names of actual peopleeven if theyre big major stars in the mainstream press corps! Meanwhile, the Kinsley Three have now made clear what weve told you all along: They dont believe the things they tell you! The dead of Iraq are in the ground because they played this sick game with Bush/Gore. And even as Kinsley stands up straight and tells you that they treat you like rubes, theres one thing of which we feel quite sure: Housebroken house-boyslike Kevin and Joshwill find endless ways not to notice.
Like colleagues Judis and Cohen before him, Kinsley has made an astonishing comment. Anyone want to hazard a guess? Will Duncan Black comment on this?
[One last question: Is Greg Sargent allowed to mention this? Or do such inclinations explain why Gregs former site still looks like this? Please note the dreadfuland obviousthings he was saying when all these strange glitches occurred.]
We ask these questions because of Matthews reactions to Clintons vile conduct last week. Last Tuesday night, after Clintons non-endorsement speech, Matthews was actually quite complimentary (just click here, then scroll down). Of course, like everyone else in TV land, he had known, all afternoon long, that Clinton wouldnt be endorsing that night; the campaign had made that point quite clear, after a mysterious AP report mistakenly said that she would endorse. But Matthews soon reversed his wide stance; the clan was battering Clinton hard, and he scurried to get in line with Standard Pundit Opinion. By Friday, he was feigning high indignation at Clintons indefensible conduct, a type hed never quite seen before. Here he was, on Fridays Hardball, explaining his own Tuesday night blunder:
Oh, OK! Yeahthat was probably it! At any rate, Matthews continued to fuss and fume about Vile Clintons vile conduct. Well, weve had close elections before, he harrumphingly said, and the loserits all the more painful for the loser, but the loser admits the pain and endorses the winner. And then, he made the following statementa statement he would pretty much repeat as he covered Clintons endorsement speech the next day:
If were not mistaken, his statement was bit more extreme the next day, as he waited for Clintons speech. (We didnt record the event, and no transcript has been posted.) Yes, you can nitpick the words endorse and concede, though Matthews used them fairly interchangeably as he complained about Clintons conduct last weekafter giving a favorable review, in real time, to her Tuesday night speech.
If were not mistaken, Matthews said on Saturday that hes never seen a situation where the loser didnt endorse/concede on the night of the final primary. Clearly, he did say, on Hardball, that hes never seen a situation where the concession speech was giving four days after the election. Why, the strange delay he was living through was a whole new world for him! That is such a ludicrous statement that we thought you might want to review some recent HOWLER HISTORY. It involves the endorsements of the saints. We refer to the official Twin Saints of Campaign 2000Saint John McCain and Saint Bill Bradley.
Throughout that campaign, the press corps pimped these sanctified men as moral sun gods returned to the earth. Matthews especially sanctified Bradley, contrasting his all-American goodnessand his wonderfully pleasing five oclock shadowwith the deeply vile traits of Gore (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/13/07). No one has ever disputed an obvious fact: Candidates Bradley and McCain were the press corps idea of two deeply sanctified men. In light of last weeks pundit panders, we thought you might want to see how these sanctified fellows went about endorsing Bush and Gore, the vile men to whom they had lost.
In the nomination battles of Campaign 2000, McCain and Bradley both stood defeated after Super TuesdayMarch 7, 2000. In each party, it was clear that the nomination fight was over. Heres the way the great saints reacted. And yes, Chris Matthews lived through these dark days. Clearly, though, he has forgotten.
The endorsement of Bush by Saint McCain: As noted, Super Tuesday fell on March 7, 2000. Two days later, a sanctified solon named Saint John McCain stepped before reporters to express his great sanctified viewpoint. In the next days Washington Post, Edward Walshs news report bore the following headline:
Say what? Walsh explained what the sanctified man had said, two days after defeat:
Huh! Two days after his defeat, this saintliest man offered Bush his best wishesbut he didnt endorse! The Washington Post editorialized:
Huh! In fact, it took the saintly man two more months to endorse Bushand when he did, the word itself had to be dragged from his mouth. Dan Balz did the reporting:
Dragging his feet every step of the way, this saintliest solon finally endorsedafter being asked why he hadnt used the word . [T]here were clear signs that the divisions that had marked the nomination contest might linger through the election, Balz opined, after watching the saintly mans conduct.
The endorsement of Gore by Saint Bradley: Saint Bradley blubbered and cried a good deal longer than Saint McCain had. Like McCain, he stood before reporters on March 9, two days after Super Tuesday. In the Post, Dale Roussakoff built an heroic framework around the great solons conduct this day. (So youll understand the Kremlinology here: The press corps had long agreed to pretend that Bradleys beat-up old car showed he was more authentic than Gore.) But uh-oh! There was no endorsement:
Stay classy! In the New York Times, James Dao went into a bit more detail about the deeply sanctified fellows unforgiving comments concerning his vile opponent: Mr. Bradley said he would not hesitate to criticize the vice president if he engaged in the same kind of negative campaigning against Gov. George W. Bush of Texas, the presumptive Republican nominee, that Mr. Bradley had accused Mr. Gore of using during the primary season. So it went as the last fully sanctified Democrat suspended his run for the White Housecomplaining that the negative/nasty Gore might even criticize Bush!
And yes, it took Bradley even longer than McCain to endorse his unworthy opponent. In the Times, Katherine Kit Seelye reported the eventon July 14, 2000, four months after defeat. (With Clinton, it took four days.) In paragraph 5, note how the hiss-spitting Times reporter hissed and spat at Gore:
They had pimped Bradleys theme about Gore all through the primary race, and they were still pimping it this very day. Al Gore was just so nasty and negative! By the way: What in the world had Vile Gore said that Seelye found so disturbing this day? Truly, Gore was willing to do and say anything. She explained in paragraph 7:
That was a Very Bad Thing Gore had said. (For the record, the dead of Iraq are in the ground because Seelye played this sick game for a yearevery f*cking day.) Of course, Ceci Connolly was pimping a variant of this Standard Theme in the Post. Lovingly, she went back and recalled the insightful things a sanctified man had said about negative, nasty, vile Gore. If Bradley wouldnt repeat his past statements, well by God, Connolly would:
Vile Gore was just so two-faced! By the way: Gore had never used the word quitter to refer to Bradley. But it felt good to pretend that he had, so Ceci pimped the claim for a year, starting on October 1, 1999. Before this, she had always advanced the claim in a paraphrased form. On this grand day, for the very first time, the word quitter turned up inside quotes.
At any rate, Matthews (unrecorded) statement on Saturday morning struck us as so deeply absurd that we thought you might want to relive this history. These stories help you see what we mean when we say the press corps hands you constructspreferred story-lines which have little relation to the actual facts of the world. Bradley and McCain were Official Press Saints; Clinton is an Official Press Villain. She was widely trashed for vile conduct this weekfor waiting four days, instead of four months. People like Matthews went on TV and pretended they meant what they said.
This a new world for me, Matthews said. Ive never been in a situation where the concession speech was giving four days after the election.