Wide Open Thread + Greenwald on the Media
By NoQuarter on January 7, 2008 at 3:47 PM in Media, Presidential Candidates
[UPDATE! Bill Kristol has lost his virginity!]
Post whatever! In the administrative No Quarter pages, I can see that we’re getting lots of activity from Larry’s post about Sibel Edmonds. Good! Next: Glenn Greenwald, as usual, writes a must-read for Salon today, “The role of political reporters“:
At The New Republic’s blog, Jason Zengerle confesses what is and has long been too obvious to require much proof — the media is uncontrollably in love with John McCain. And Zengerle’s reason why this is so is equally unsurprising: McCain gives them unfettered access, so they love him. Everything is about them, and whichever politician flatters and charms these adolescent, coddled narcissists is the recipient of their uncritical love (that explains much, though not all, of their profound failure in covering the Bush campaigns and administration). …
Greenwald then quotes Zengerle:
Speaking of McCain and the media, I was at a dinner tonight with various political reporters who are up here to cover the happenings, and it was pretty funny how giddy/relieved they were at the prospect of a McCain-Obama general election campaign, as opposed to, say, a Romney-Clinton one. Suddenly, the next 11 months of their lives look a whole lot more enjoyable.
Then Greenwald hits it out of the park:
Those preferences — all based in their own petty personal desires — couldn’t be more obvious in the media narrative spewing forth. Dancing around like munchkins in Oz, they proclaim that the wicked Clinton witch is dead and McCain is surging with a miraculous, glorious comeback.
Leave aside whether any of that is true. Why are predictions and speculation even part of the job of a political reporter at all? One can see why opinionists and pundits might dabble in that sort of predictive analysis, but why do “reporters” covering these campaigns consider it their province to guess about which candidates are going to win and lose, as opposed to, say, reporting on what they argue, what their claims are, the truth of their positions, etc. etc.?
Aside from the fact that these endless prediction games completely overwhelm any substantive discussions, their guesses — which are really wishes — are almost always dreadfully wrong and plainly designed to advance their concealed agenda for which candidates they like and dislike. Why is any of that something that reporters ought to be doing at all? Is there any distinction between what a “reporter” does and what a “pundit” does covering this campaign? There doesn’t seem to be any.
Greenwald is pissed that the media aren’t covering Edwards:
[T]here has been one candidate who has been genuinely surging in the last week or two among Democratic voters nationally — John Edwards: …
Yet to listen to media reports, Edwards doesn’t even exist. His campaign is dead. He has no chance. They hate Edwards, hate his message, and thus rendered him invisible long ago, only now to declare him dead — after he came in second place in the first caucus of the campaign.
Greenwald isn’t done. He even gives a nod to Fred Thompson’s frustrations, and to those of Hillary Clinton’s campaign:
Go read Time or The New Republic or The Politico or The Washington Post and see if you can find any examples of straight factual reporting about the remaining candidates, their positions, anything substantive — rather than endless, group-think gossip about tactics and winning/losing predictions. It basically doesn’t exist (here’s an interview Ana Marie Cox conducted with John McCain yesterday where she tried to press him on his comment that we should remain in Iraq for 100 years — notable because it’s so rare to find any questions of this type).
I realize none of this is a revelation. But it’s still astonishing how extreme it is. The point isn’t just that this empty chatter squeezes out anything more meaningful — it does — but that it completely drives voter perceptions and controls the ability of candidates to be heard.
Here is an interview with Fred Thompson on the Today Show where he makes this point quite well, chiding the interviewer for asking him about nothing other than the sorts of speculative, irrelevant predictive matters that dominate press coverage, to the complete exclusion of anything he is trying to argue as part of his campaign. Inventing exciting dramatic narratives and predicting outcomes just isn’t the role of a political reporter, even thought it’s what most of them to do to the exclusion of all else.
UPDATE: Speaking of petty, vacuous journalists acting like giddy munchkins, here’s Mickey Kaus (emphasis in original) … “Monday’s Must-See Event–The Train Wreck Tour: The reporters I talk to are looking forward to the final pre-election joint Bill and Hillary Clinton rally Monday evening with the same lascivious delight you might encounter before a Britney Spears/Amy Winehouse double bill. Everyone expects it to be a gruesome night for the Clintons; their aides have been lashing out at the press uncharmingly. Anything could happen! …”
As Kevin Drum says, there are all kinds of reasons why a rational person might consider the defeat of Hillary Clinton to be a good thing. The fact that it’s being caused, in part, by snide, catty sniping over petty matters from reporters who hate the Clintons isn’t one of them. Just compare the anti-Clinton media histrionics over the fact that she “raised her voice” (very mildly) during the debate with their endless love for McCain, one of the most tempermental and uncontrollably angry political figures in the country. …
Read it all. And, per usual, Glenn keeps adding updates all day.
This COULD be an example of what Greenwald is talking about. I happen to think the WaPo reporter’s POV may be accurate, but I’m prejudiced.
(Btw, my daughter is reading a book by an Emory University psychologist about how our UNCONSCIOUS influences how we react to news.)
A book/movie about psychological subtexts that explores this, “Face In The Crowd”.
Susan, THAT was a GREAT post.
I aim to please you, Shirin. (I’m giggling.)
LOOOOOOOL! Not QUITE an Obama-free post, but close enough!
Pretty soon I’m gonna need rehab! They’ll have to teach me to BELIEVE in CHANGE. To HOPE. But it’ll be difficult, and I won’t be a compliant patient.
Hey, just got back from physical therapy. Pestered the therapist to get my forgetful local doctor to renew me so I can keep going. I’m in the therapy pool every session … it’s great. The bottom of the pool is actually a treadmill — if they turn it on. And they’re turning on the jets to create greater resistance. I hurt like HELL afterwards for a couple days, but I can feel the benefits. My legs are getting a bit straighter. Just wish they’d let me drive but they say my reactions aren’t fast enough yet. Of course, I disagree, but realize that they are looking at me objectively, and I most certainly am not.
SusanUnPC: Kick Ass and take no prisoners. Swimming is great rehab.
Saying prayers for you. all the best!
Get Shirin a wind proof umbrella…LOL That will do it.
The two umbrellas that I lost on Friday WERE “windproof”. :o{
Mary Poppins signature line eh?
They need to do a major recall!
With all due respect, and all, Edwards barely exists here either, except in the comments.You didn’t include a couple of the key paragraphs of the Greenwald piece. Why?
Shirin’s comments are accurate. Why is nearly every post a rant on Obama? That’s not good enough, by a long shot.
I DID include this line:
“there has been one candidate who has been genuinely surging in the last week or two among Democratic voters nationally — John Edwards: …”
I could have skipped the entire section, but quoted two paragraphs about Edwards.
FYI: I LIKE EDWARDS! I’d support him in a heartbeat! (And I’ve said so innumerable times here in posts and comments.)
What I always say about him is this: “I can see him in the Oval.”
I can. He may not, as Larry has said, have much foreign policy experience, but I can tell that he’s brilliant, a quick study and furthermore really thinks HARD about the issues. That’s why he can speak extemporaneously about foreign policy matters — anything that’s asked of him — because it’s obvious he has spent a great deal of time learning it all.
I like Edwards because he was so very disappointed in Kerry the morning he gave the 04 election to bush. I like him cause he kept on trying right afterwards in the fight to run now. he is smart. I do not have the wisdom to know foreign policy but I think I would make a good president with the right ppl behind me doing as I asked them to do and listening to them on their thoughts on things. This is what is so good about a president that s/he is able to listen and ask things that need asking.
However, the only thing I have with Edwards is his last visit to Israel [AIPAC]. He seemingly pandered to them, but then again they all do, it seems.
Anyhow, if I were voting today for a president, I would vote for Edwards. He has paid his dues and did his thing in saying his vote for the Iraq war was wrong. Anyhow this is just my .02 cents worth.
O am an Independent and for what it is worth, I will vote for any dem. I do not want any of the republicans in my or our White House ever. They are not good for the country. I actually have not seen a republican in a long time that I would vote for.
Susan, I am so glad you are getting stronger. This is what is all about, isn’t it? Hugs and Happy New Year to each of you.
The virtually complete absence of mention of Edwards everywhere but in the comment section is especially peculiar given the blog owner’s claim that he favours Edwards, is it not?
Yes the MSM has been ignoring Edwards for over a year, I watch and listen closely as many do. Have been hounding Matthews and other MSMer’s via getting on Talk of the Nation, Diane Rehm etc asking why the MSM can not at least try to appear “fair and balanced” they are so blatantly not. They have pounded Hillary, had a love fest with Obama and ignored Edwards. We have come to expect this from the Chris Matthews of the MSM…but go listen to the so called “liberal” media. Go listen to Mark Green of Air America interview Gary Hart, Arianna Huffington(really put Edwards down down) Don’t listen to me listen for yourselves
Go listen to Mark Green of Air America (just found out that he is the owner) program from this Saturday. Here is what I posted over at Salon
Mark Green of Air America is as bad as the MSM
This past Saturday on Mark Green’s Air America program 7 days in America Green ignored Edwards second place win as much as the MSM has. If you go listen to Green’s Saturday one hour program on the Iowa vote you will hear for yourselves. He focused on Obama Obama Clinton Obama Obama Obama Clinton. He completely ignored Edwards second place win. Just what is Mark Greens agenda? It was obvious on Saturday it was to completely ignore Edwards second place win.
Green’s guest Gary Hart and Arianna Huffington were just as bad as Green. Huffington basically sailed by Edwards second place and the few words she had to say were dismal. I have to give it to Katrina of the Nation she gave Edwards a fair shot, she actually brought up his name and as soon as she did, Mark Green ignored and swept Edwards under the rug. Ok this is the kind of treatment that we have come to expect from Chris Matthews on Edwards. But Mark Green proved himself just as bad as the MSM for ignoring Edwards. Mark Green of Air America fair and balanced. Horse shit! Go listen for yourselves.
Just who is Mark Green working for?
Go listen for yourselves it is shocking and disappointing. (I did just get on th the RAndi Rhodes show and brought this up) Randi laughed and said that she can not “criticize her boss” Mark Green. I responded “I can”. I also mentioned that I really do not want to vote for another “white guy” but Damn it..Edwards is taking stronger stands than any other candidate against corporate interest, and he has also stated that he will not allow any lobbyist in his administration….NONE Bye Bye to the Richard Perle’s, John BOlton’s and Wolfowitz’s of the world. Edwards has also said he will not allow anyone who has lobbied for another country! This is huge huge huge
Go listen to this show of Mark Green of Air America from this past Saturday.
green ignored Edwards
Here is the link to that show.
http://www.airamerica.com/7daysinamerica/
Someone much more skilled in the gift of writing should give Mark Green the one two.
Friday on Democracy Now they had on representatives from Obama’s, Clinton’s and Edwards’ campaigns, and I have to say that they gave Edwards reasonably equal time, I think. However, Hillary’s person was spinning so blatantly it was almost embarrassing. She insisted that Hillary had taken second place, then she admitted that she had tied for second. Okay, so one percentage point is not statistically significant, but technically Hillary took third. She even fudged the numbers claiming that Hillary and Edwards had tied at 29.5%.
But the most egregious thing was that she kept talking about how it was now a two-person race between Hillary and Obama. Come on! You take third or even tie for second, and the guy who beat you is out of the race?
Amy Goodman of Democracy Now is one of the best media/reporters/ outlet that we have going. Amy is incredible!
But I will tell you go listen to that program that Mark Green of Air America did this past Saturday. He was as lopsided as Chris Matthews. Arianna Huffington and Gary Hart were just as bad and unfair as Mark Green. Katrina from the Nation really tried hard to be fair and balanced…Green undermined her efforts.
Don’t believe me go to the Air America site and listen. We know things are bad when the so called “progressive” media outlets are as lopsided as Chris Matthews.
[...] post by NO QUARTER and software by Elliott Back This entry is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any [...]
Read Justin Raimando’s latest on the Sibel Edmonds case and the “enemies” within our nation.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12166
Watch the Sibel Edmonds video clip at the bottom of Justins article
Here are a few of the documents that Justin refers to in his article.
The Rosen Weissman indictment
http://www.newsfollowup.com/indictment.htm
Senate Select committee on Intelligence report on ‘alleged” art students taken into custody and then “allegedly” released after top level officials asked for them to be released
http://www.newsfollowup.com/id/docs/MemorandumtotheCommissionandSelectCommitteesbold.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR200
8010404308.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Why I Believe Bush Must Go
Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse.
By George McGovern
Sunday, January 6, 2008; Page B01
As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president.
Try the link again on Mc Govern
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404308.html?hpid=o
pinionsbox1
Susan and others if you have not read this report. It
is a must for a deeper understanding of 9/11. I read it when it first came out. Helps connect some more dots.
Read the whole thing when you have the time
http://www.newsfollowup.com/id/docs/MemorandumtotheCommissionandSelectCommitteesbold.pdf
[...] abum wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptAt The New Republic’s blog, Jason Zengerle confesses what is and has long been too obvious to require much proof — the media is uncontrollably in love with John McCain. And Zengerle’s reason why this is so is equally unsurprising: … [...]
But regarding the upcoming election, there’s something that few are talking about…Obama may have won Iowa, but he didn’t win Iowa’s superdelegates. Clinton won twice as many superdelegates as Obama, and it’s the superdelegates that will ultimately determine who wins the nomination. Right?
I don’t know how this works? [Have a cold too, too tired to look it up.] Does anyone know how the superdelegates work?
Fyi. From The Nation’s online blog. Katrina v. H., the editor.
(snip) And now that Iowans have spoken – the first citizens in the nation to do so – here’s the Democratic delegate count for the top three candidates (2,025 delegates are needed to secure the nomination):
Clinton – 169
Obama – 66
Edwards – 47
“Huh?” you say. “vanden Heuvel, you made a MAJOR typo.”
In fact, those numbers are correct: the third-place finishing Sen. Hillary Clinton now has over twice as many delegates as Sen. Obama, and more than three times as many delegates as the second-place candidate, Sen. John Edwards. Why? Because the Democratic Party uses an antiquated and anti-democratic nominating system that includes 842 “super-delegates” – un-pledged party leaders not chosen by the voters, free to support the candidate of their choice, and who comprise more than forty percent of the delegates needed to win the nomination. Many have already announced the candidate they will support.
In a clear attempt to protect the party establishment, this undemocratic infrastructure was created following George McGovern’s landslide defeat in 1972. It was designed to prevent a nominee who was “out of sync with the rest of the party,” Northeastern University political scientist William Mayer told MSNBC. Democratic National Committee member Elaine Kamarck called it a “sort of safety valve.”
My 2 cents: I can see where elected officials and party members should be delegates; to have the percentage at 41% is seriously f*cked.
Here’s the link. It is short. I only left out a paragraph and a half.
Best with the cold. Big brother Wethornet would tell you to practice self care, but since I suck at that I can’t say that. “Be the change you wish to see” and all of that.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=266130
Add to that the tyrannical “slingshot” effect of Iowa and New Hampshire, two states so otherwise insignificant nationally.
It’d be great to have regional and/or national primaries.
My vote doesn’t even get counted because Wash. state votes after the nominees are always determined. Same with Larry.
Which explains in part why we’re so noisy. We don’t get to use our energy for door-knocking or rallies or anything. We only have this little spot to vent!
I understand that the superdelegates may save your candidate.
I agree Wethorne and thanks for link. This is a form of Gerrymandering not seen by the public and is akin to insider trading.
The Front-Loading Problem in Presidential Nominations By William G. Mayer, Andrew Busch
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=hUB_BV90wLAC&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&ots=TjRYA1s1R8&sig=HJpEqeHkl-te2p1MeTlMgBp9DS8#PPA7,M1
Wethornet:
Best with the cold. Big brother Wethornet would tell you to practice self care, but since I suck at that I can’t say that. “Be the change you wish to see” and all of that.
Hey Bro..We’re thinking of you..Hope you are getting some sleep and in good health.
We need to touch base soon.. The Holiday season was just so insanely busy..
Kind Regards,
Hoosier Hoops, appreciate the thought, but, minor clarification. Leslie wrote about the superdelegates, and then said,
That was Leslie. I then posted the superdelegates info. Then I wrote (to her) “best w/the cold,” etc, etc.
(My health is it’s usual par for the course lousy. But I do a poor job taking care of myself as well.)
~~~
I hear you about the holidays and being busy. Email me when things settle down in Hooserville. No rush, I’ll be here.
I agree, 41% is ridiculous. Fortunately, it’s incorrect. 872 delegates out of over 4,000 is nowhere near 41%.
Just got in a call on Air America’s program “Clout”. Ted Sorenson was on in support of Obama. I asked Sorenson what was he basing his support of Obama on? I mentioned that I had found the Obama spin machine questionable and very successful. I asked how Obama was an “agent of change”? I mentioned that Obama had had an opportunity to made a real anti-war stand by voting against the Kyl Lieberman amendment which Senator Webb called “tantamount to declaring war on Iran”. Obama had an opportunity to demonstrate that he was truly an anti-war candidate. He happened to be out of town.
Sorenson actually lied when I mentioned that Edwards is the only candidate not taking Pac Money and is the only candidate who has said that he will not have lobbyist in his administration and no individual who has lobbied for a foreign nation. Sorenson said that all of the Democratic candidates have said this. ABSOLUTELY HOGWASH TED SORENSON. COMPLETE AND UTTER HOGWASH.
I swear the so called “progressive” media is giving Obama an easy ride. No hard questions no real scrutiny on his sit on the fence with your finger to the wind strategy.
This lop-sided coverage is maddening!
Thanks everyone, for reminding me why I have always considered domestic politics a bunch of unreal, waste-of-time bull****.
Shirin, this is my first time disagreeing with you.
Yes, I agree with you about the time element and the bs. Was it George Bernard Shaw who said, “the problem with socialism is that it required too many evenings?”
But, when too many good people secede from public affairs we get what we have today: American citizens being screwed, blued and royally tatooed at home, and the evil, the absolute evil, that is being done overseas flows from our domestic politics.
This Edmund Burke quote is well known: “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” (and women.)
But I like this one even more. In the words of Plato: “the price of apathy in public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” (and women.)
Well, all good things must come to an end! But I am glad someone around here agrees with me most of the time at least! :o}
Look, I am familiar with both of the quotations you offered, and I agree completely with both of them, in principle. But at what point, after it has been crystal clear that you are engaged in an exercise in futility, does it make sense to move on and put your energies elsewhere?
Need I remind you that it is American domestic politics that brought eight years of George W. Bush upon the world? That the glorious Congress willingly sent Iraq into a more or less permanent hell (and let’s not even discuss that supposedly “justified” business with Afghanistan), and may have opened the door to yet more folly in Iran and god knows where else in the next year?
May I point out that with the acquiescence of the glorious Congress, and in some cases the cooperation of the judiciary, the Constitution has been put into and industrial strength shredder, and the concept of human rights has been all but obliterated?
May I point out that with the whole-hearted cooperation of the entire U.S. government, every branch, any positive relationship of the United States with the rest of the world has all but been destroyed, and it has become crystal clear why “they hate us” - everywhere?
May I remind you that the glorious Congress has willingly approved such atrocities as the Patriot Act? And that the glorious Congress, even under Democratic party dominance, has rolled over and peed on itself like an excessively submissive puppy dog on virtually every issue that matters?
The American political system is based on everything except what it SHOULD be based on. Where is the substance? Where are the things that really matter? It is all so bloody superficial. Even here in this serious and sophisticated company we have day after day after day of almost nothing but trying to promote one candidate by means of constant tiresome bashing of her opponent. We have people here seriously talking about voting for someone for president of this country simply because she is being unfairly attacked - what kind of bullshit is that?
And elsewhere we see this same candidate vilified not for her record on things that matter, and not for her stated policies, but why? Because she didn’t leave her cheating husband, or because she does not come across publicly as “warm” or “feminine enough” - as if that has anything to do with her ability to be president.
And then we have Obama, who orates nicely, but says little (hell, even Bush can sound OK when he is reading what others have written for him) while the candidates who have something of substance to say are virtually completely ignored.
Today I listened to a woman who was at one of the Iowa caucuses talking about the roll of the media in all this. She said that while the three “top” candidates talked a lot about what they wanted to do and what should happen, it was only the four others who had anything to say about how they would accomplish their goals, and it was those four who got zero attention. It’s easy to talk big about what you’re going to do, but it is meaningless without some idea of how you will do it.
There is no substance to this process. It is all about who can buy the best P.R. people, or who has the best line of bull, or who can most effectively - and more often than not utterly unfairly or irrelevantly - attack the opposition.
End of semi-coherent rant.
My nephew is on one of those ships.
Waiting, I will keep him in my thoughts and prayers. Please keep us updated on this blog. (And when is he supposed to rotate home?)
Put an email piece up in the Edmonds thread.
Another reader here made a recent note on something Hillary said about a person in the Bush Executive Branch. That person happens to be quite relevant to the Edmonds disclosures and appears to play a central role.
Butt, Butt. the media was fine when Hillary was leading in all the polls Before Iowa/New Hampshire. It’s not the media, it’s not the sexist’s, it is the voters who have Listened, close up, one on one who are deciding they want Obama instead. If she can’t match the “green” Obama then she does not deserve the nomination. Experience holds no sway with me, just look back at the last seven years and tell me experience at BushCo brought us anything but grief.
It’s a lose lose for me no matter who wins. Everyone of them is going to open up the border to all the illegals that can make it here. The health care industry will remain alive and well they will just be getting more Tax money on top of the high premiums. We will remain mired in Iraq no matter who wins. The more they say “change” the more things will remain the same.
I’ve been around for a LOT of elections and this is just another one. It’s a Big Biz world.
Wide Open Thread
Presidential Election - The Worst Shopping Experience
When I go to the store, I like to know what I’m getting. I read some of the ingredients I can pronounce, check the price, remember what I know about the manufacturer and then consider whether I even need this thing at all. It’s a cost/benefit experience.
I feel as though this election cycle, more than most I can remember, is more like shopping for a religion, or maybe a rock concert performer. When Obama beckons the audience by opening with, “Are you ready for change?”, it reminds me of the televangelist’s “Can you feel the presence of the Lord?” It also reminds me of Vince Neil opening a Motley Crue concert by shouting “Are you ready to rock?”. A cynical fan might think, “No Shit Sherlock, that’s why I paid 50 bucks to be here”. Except that cynical fan is more likely to be down the street at the Leonard Cohen concert where he’s singing, Everybody knows that the war is over; Eeverybody knows that the good guys lost.
Obama talks about change. Change what? I guess it doesn’t matter to most of his supporters. On a C-SPAN call in show the other day during the Iowa Caucuses, the host took one of those occasional moments to question the caller. ‘What do you think about his experience, or lack of it, that people are talking about?’ - ‘The people in politics now are experienced, and look what that got us.’ - ‘Do you think he’s a liberal candidate?’ - ‘Well I don’t know, but I like the convincing way he expresses the need for change’.
So it seems as though Obama appeals to those who are drawn to the dream of change, without worrying about how it’s supposed to actually work. Meanwhile, Clinton appeals to those who value “hard work”, Edwards appeals to those who want justice for being shafted, Giuliani appeals to those who want shelter from their fear of another 9/11, and Ron Paul appeals to those who just want to be left alone. Choose your entertainment, the choices are numerous; you know, just like cable TV.
I’m having real trouble with this campaign because my cost/benefit shopping instinct is being convoluted with personality appeals over and above real issues. The news media doesn’t help much. Lot’s of reptorting similar to watching an episode of a reality show like ‘Survivor’, where the most entertaining moments are when the contestants get to ‘dis’ each other.
Of course it’s not ALL this way. Facts can be found, especially using this same computer I’m now typing on. Unfortunately though, the processor speed of the computer has nothing to do with the speed at which I can find information I can use. The information explosion of the internet has resulted in a proportional explosion of bullshit.
American politics, at least at the presidential level, has always been more about personality appeals, emotion, and rhetoric than about anything of substance, but I agree with you that this time it seems worse than usual.
On that note, isn’t it interesting how Dodd turned out? Whether one agrees with him or not, more than anyone else he put extra focus on the credibility of his experience with numerous examples to show how he accomplished things, and how he made the right choices to work with the other key people in key ways.
His reward for that effort was a whopping 1%. While some people, such as yourself, do care about real issues and experience, others merely claim to, while they vote otherwise on entertainment value. Obama reminds me of Reagan in this way; all platitude and no substance.
Still others, like the C-Span caller above, come right out and admit they don’t care about experience. For whatever that’s worth, at least she was honest.
Israel to brief Bush on options for Iran strike during visit
John Byrne
Published: Monday January 7, 2008
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Israel_to_brief_Bush_on_options_0107.html
http://www.democracynow.org/
so incredibly disappointing even Amy Goodman ignoring Edwards today in her coverage of the New Hampshire Primary. It’s as if Clinton and Obama are the only candidates. It’s as if Edwards did not come in second place in Iowa. WTF is up with Amy Goodman? She has not even mentioned that Edwards is in the race.
I was astounded when I heard Mark Green of Air America’s 7 days in America(found out he is the owner of Air America) this past Saturday cheerlead for Barack Obama along with Arianna Huffington and Gary Hart. Mark Green did not bring Edwards up and when Katrina from the Nation brought Edwards up…Mark Green swept Edwards under the rug.
But Amy Amy Goodman is ignoring Edwards too.
What’s up Amy? What’s up Mark Green? We expect this out of Chris Matthews but you too.
What do these folks have against Edwards.
Go listen to Amy for yourselves. Fair and Balanced.
Glenn Greenwald might want to think about reviewing the so called “progressives” coverage of Edwards.
Contact Amy let her know what you think about her coverage or lack of.
http://www.democracynow.org/