HE INVENTED THE REMIX
Maureen Dowd today:
...Barack Obama, who says he listens to Jay-Z along with his "old school guy" favorites like Earth, Wind & Fire and the Temptations, alluded to the rapper's 2003 hit "Dirt Off Your Shoulder" on Thursday to sweep away concerns about his pugnacity.
After conceding that the Philly debate was tough, he brushed the imaginary lint of Hillary, George and Charlie from his shoulders, in a wordless reference to Jay-Z’s lyrics....
She says:
It had to be the first time in history that a presidential candidate had a hip-hop moment.
What?! "The first"?!
Dowd wouldn't give that honor to Mitt Romney singing "Who Let the Dogs Out?" on Martin Luther King Day?
I'm appalled.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Saturday, April 19, 2008
THE POLITICO REWRITES THE PAST
Today at the Politico, John Harris and Jim VandeHei argue that press criticism of this week's debate proves that the press is in the tank for Obama -- absolutely no one apart from "Clinton supporters," Harris and VandeHei insist, uttered a word of criticism when Hillary Clinton was subjected to similar treatment by Tim Russert and Brian Williams in a debate last fall. Certainly no one in the press.
Further, Harris and VandeHei suggest that "the liberal echo chamber" is driving press coverage -- which seems to be their way of implying that new-media liberals were silent in the fall.
Er, sorry, but not quite. The evidence is below.
Here's what Harris and VandeHei have to say:
...The shower of indignation on Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos over the last few days is the clearest evidence yet that the Clintonites are fundamentally correct in their complaint that she has been flying throughout this campaign into a headwind of media favoritism for Obama.
Last fall, when NBC's Tim Russert hazed Clinton with a bunch of similar questions -- a mix of fair and impertinent -- he got lots of gripes from Clinton supporters.
But there was nothing like the piling on from journalists ... denouncing ABC's performance as journalistically unsound....
There wasn't? As Media Matters noted at the time, there was all this:
...In writing about the October 30 debate, numerous media figures noted the conduct of the moderators, and Russert's in particular:
* An October 31 New York Times article on the debate reported: "Mrs. Clinton walked into the debate expecting to be the target of attacks but as the night went on, she appeared surprised by the intensity as she was challenged not only by her opponents but by the moderators, Brian Williams and Tim Russert of NBC." The article later described Russert as "arguably" Clinton's "third toughest opponent on the stage."
* In an October 31 Washington Post "Media Notes" column, media critic Howard Kurtz wrote: "At times, it seemed like 4 against 1, with Brian [Williams] and Tim [Russert] repeatedly pressing Hillary as well." ...
* In an October 30 entry on the washingtonpost.com blog The Fix, Chris Cillizza wrote: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) spent the first hour of the debate fending off shots from her opponents and parrying pointed questions from the moderators." He also asserted that Clinton "for the majority of the debate ... acquitted herself well despite having the deck stacked heavily against her. In the first hour, nearly every question and response started and ended with Clinton." ...
There was also this, from Nicholas Von Hoffman in The New York Observer:
A couple of weeks ago, during a Democratic presidential debate on MSNBC, two men claiming to be journalists threw wilted lettuce and decomposed organic material at the candidates. Judging from the questions aimed at the candidate/victims, the purpose of the networks sponsoring these debates is to bait, bully and embarrass while giving the news celebrities a chance to make themselves appear superior to the dumbkins running for president. If the people putting on this show treated their pets thusly, they would be arrested.
... Tim Russert cast himself as a political Jerry Springer, posing questions that had no other purpose than to get these politicians fighting each other as they do in those daytime television spectacles. Mr. Russert left the viewer with the impression that he believes he should be running for president. His intention was plain. He was to be the superior one, the poised person with the correct answers while the candidates were made to look like a clutch of clumsy, ox-brained tangle-foots.
... Tim Russert abandon[ed] the role of debate moderator for that of Crusader Rabbit or Tribune of the People...
And even this from a right-winger, Jay Cost, at Real Clear Politics:
In the first two segments, I counted thirty-three questions. Twenty-two of them were designed to facilitate either another candidate attacking Hillary Clinton, or Clinton responding to attacks (either from another candidate or from Russert). Indeed, all of the major subjects were structured around attacks on Clinton....Afterwards, I could only stomach so much post-debate "analysis." Before I had to walk away from the TV to find the Tums, I watched in amazement as Chris Matthews interviewed Joe Biden and Chris Dodd -- and talked about nothing more than Hillary Clinton.
Yet Harris and VandeHei say that no one apart from her advocates stuck up for Clinton. And if Obama's being defended now, they say, here's one reason:
The rise of the liberal echo chamber. It used to be that if a reporter received a letter that started, "You biased S.O.B.," it was almost certainly coming from someone on the right....
But it has only been in this campaign cycle that we have seen the liberal echo chamber -- from websites like The Huffington Post and cable commentators like Keith Olbermann -- be able consistently to drive a campaign story line... This is a huge shift.
But, er, there was plenty of outrage at Russert in "the liberal echo chamber" back in the fall.
The Daily Howler:
On Tuesday night, Russert and Williams staged a public auto-da-fe the likes of which we've never seen. But then, no one else has seen such a thing either; simply put, there has never been a presidential debate like the one the two high peacocks staged. And let's get real here: For anyone who has followed their work, it is impossible to imagine the pair doing such things to a leading Republican.
The American Prospect:
Tim Russert: Stop the Inanity
...I have a fantasy that at one of these moments, a candidate will say, "You know what, Tim, I'm not going to answer that question. This is serious business. And you, sir, are a disgrace. You have in front of you a group of accomplished, talented leaders, one of whom will in all likelihood be the next president of the United States. You can ask them whatever you want. And you choose to engage in this ridiculous gotcha game, thinking up inane questions you hope will trick us into saying something controversial or stupid. Your fondest hope is that the answer to your question will destroy someone's campaign. You're not a journalist, you're the worst kind of hack, someone whose efforts not only don't contribute to a better informed electorate, they make everyone dumber. So no, I'm not going to stand here and try to come up with the most politically safe Bible verse to cite. Is that the best you can do?"
And this is in addition to Hillary advocates in the blogosphere such as Taylor Marsh ("Russert Leads Boys in Hillary Hit Job") and Jane Hamsher ("As John Amato said last night when we were watching the debate, 'why doesn't he just ask her if she killed Vince Foster?'").
So if Harris and VandeHei think there wasn't enough backlash against Russert and Williams, why not, given their sense that the press asks "How high?" when angry online liberals say "Jump!"?
Today at the Politico, John Harris and Jim VandeHei argue that press criticism of this week's debate proves that the press is in the tank for Obama -- absolutely no one apart from "Clinton supporters," Harris and VandeHei insist, uttered a word of criticism when Hillary Clinton was subjected to similar treatment by Tim Russert and Brian Williams in a debate last fall. Certainly no one in the press.
Further, Harris and VandeHei suggest that "the liberal echo chamber" is driving press coverage -- which seems to be their way of implying that new-media liberals were silent in the fall.
Er, sorry, but not quite. The evidence is below.
Here's what Harris and VandeHei have to say:
...The shower of indignation on Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos over the last few days is the clearest evidence yet that the Clintonites are fundamentally correct in their complaint that she has been flying throughout this campaign into a headwind of media favoritism for Obama.
Last fall, when NBC's Tim Russert hazed Clinton with a bunch of similar questions -- a mix of fair and impertinent -- he got lots of gripes from Clinton supporters.
But there was nothing like the piling on from journalists ... denouncing ABC's performance as journalistically unsound....
There wasn't? As Media Matters noted at the time, there was all this:
...In writing about the October 30 debate, numerous media figures noted the conduct of the moderators, and Russert's in particular:
* An October 31 New York Times article on the debate reported: "Mrs. Clinton walked into the debate expecting to be the target of attacks but as the night went on, she appeared surprised by the intensity as she was challenged not only by her opponents but by the moderators, Brian Williams and Tim Russert of NBC." The article later described Russert as "arguably" Clinton's "third toughest opponent on the stage."
* In an October 31 Washington Post "Media Notes" column, media critic Howard Kurtz wrote: "At times, it seemed like 4 against 1, with Brian [Williams] and Tim [Russert] repeatedly pressing Hillary as well." ...
* In an October 30 entry on the washingtonpost.com blog The Fix, Chris Cillizza wrote: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) spent the first hour of the debate fending off shots from her opponents and parrying pointed questions from the moderators." He also asserted that Clinton "for the majority of the debate ... acquitted herself well despite having the deck stacked heavily against her. In the first hour, nearly every question and response started and ended with Clinton." ...
There was also this, from Nicholas Von Hoffman in The New York Observer:
A couple of weeks ago, during a Democratic presidential debate on MSNBC, two men claiming to be journalists threw wilted lettuce and decomposed organic material at the candidates. Judging from the questions aimed at the candidate/victims, the purpose of the networks sponsoring these debates is to bait, bully and embarrass while giving the news celebrities a chance to make themselves appear superior to the dumbkins running for president. If the people putting on this show treated their pets thusly, they would be arrested.
... Tim Russert cast himself as a political Jerry Springer, posing questions that had no other purpose than to get these politicians fighting each other as they do in those daytime television spectacles. Mr. Russert left the viewer with the impression that he believes he should be running for president. His intention was plain. He was to be the superior one, the poised person with the correct answers while the candidates were made to look like a clutch of clumsy, ox-brained tangle-foots.
... Tim Russert abandon[ed] the role of debate moderator for that of Crusader Rabbit or Tribune of the People...
And even this from a right-winger, Jay Cost, at Real Clear Politics:
In the first two segments, I counted thirty-three questions. Twenty-two of them were designed to facilitate either another candidate attacking Hillary Clinton, or Clinton responding to attacks (either from another candidate or from Russert). Indeed, all of the major subjects were structured around attacks on Clinton....Afterwards, I could only stomach so much post-debate "analysis." Before I had to walk away from the TV to find the Tums, I watched in amazement as Chris Matthews interviewed Joe Biden and Chris Dodd -- and talked about nothing more than Hillary Clinton.
Yet Harris and VandeHei say that no one apart from her advocates stuck up for Clinton. And if Obama's being defended now, they say, here's one reason:
The rise of the liberal echo chamber. It used to be that if a reporter received a letter that started, "You biased S.O.B.," it was almost certainly coming from someone on the right....
But it has only been in this campaign cycle that we have seen the liberal echo chamber -- from websites like The Huffington Post and cable commentators like Keith Olbermann -- be able consistently to drive a campaign story line... This is a huge shift.
But, er, there was plenty of outrage at Russert in "the liberal echo chamber" back in the fall.
The Daily Howler:
On Tuesday night, Russert and Williams staged a public auto-da-fe the likes of which we've never seen. But then, no one else has seen such a thing either; simply put, there has never been a presidential debate like the one the two high peacocks staged. And let's get real here: For anyone who has followed their work, it is impossible to imagine the pair doing such things to a leading Republican.
The American Prospect:
Tim Russert: Stop the Inanity
...I have a fantasy that at one of these moments, a candidate will say, "You know what, Tim, I'm not going to answer that question. This is serious business. And you, sir, are a disgrace. You have in front of you a group of accomplished, talented leaders, one of whom will in all likelihood be the next president of the United States. You can ask them whatever you want. And you choose to engage in this ridiculous gotcha game, thinking up inane questions you hope will trick us into saying something controversial or stupid. Your fondest hope is that the answer to your question will destroy someone's campaign. You're not a journalist, you're the worst kind of hack, someone whose efforts not only don't contribute to a better informed electorate, they make everyone dumber. So no, I'm not going to stand here and try to come up with the most politically safe Bible verse to cite. Is that the best you can do?"
And this is in addition to Hillary advocates in the blogosphere such as Taylor Marsh ("Russert Leads Boys in Hillary Hit Job") and Jane Hamsher ("As John Amato said last night when we were watching the debate, 'why doesn't he just ask her if she killed Vince Foster?'").
So if Harris and VandeHei think there wasn't enough backlash against Russert and Williams, why not, given their sense that the press asks "How high?" when angry online liberals say "Jump!"?
Friday, April 18, 2008
DO JOURNALISTS FOLLOW SURROGATES' LEADS? YES, BUT ONLY AGAINST DEMOCRATS
A couple of days ago we saw that when Sean Hannity suggested a line of attack against Barack Obama, George Stephanopoulos literally took dictation ("Well, I'm taking notes right now").
So the lesson to be learned from this is that Democrats should also try to drive press coverage, right?
Ah, but that's where the problem lies. The press, desperate not to be called liberal, eagerly overcorrects by absorbing and retransmitting GOP spin, particularly in election years -- but when Democrats try to dish the dirt, the press suddenly rediscovers skepticism.
See, for instance, this New York Observer review of two books that try to knock off John McCain's halo:
...neither [Cliff Schecter's The Real McCain] nor the eerily similar Free Ride [by David Brock and Paul Waldman] will convert someone who believes in Mr. McCain. These are tools for the already converted.
Mr. Schecter's book ...[is] full of passion and unconcealed bias....
Messrs. Brock and Waldman are essentially debunking a caricature. It's not a terrible story, but neither is it a revelation. Making caricatures of politicians is how journalists, and readers, organize loyalties.... Caricatures, unfair or otherwise, are the result of accumulated profiles written on deadline; they’re an inevitable by-product of a career in politics....
The argument comes up a little thin, then. The profusion of anecdotes about the "real" McCain give the impression of a vendetta, as though the authors harbor the bitter suspicion that Mr. McCain is getting away with something. Like Cliff Schecter, David Brock and Paul Waldman are unreliable narrators....
Sean Hannity, by contrast, is just a humble truth-teller, Diogenes with a blow dryer.
But you would think attention must be paid to these books -- after all, the Observer review reminds us that
Shortly after it was published last month, it became clear that Free Ride would literally be the blueprint for the assault on Mr. McCain. On April 10, Ben Smith reported in Politico that David Brock is leading a group of wealthy Democrats in a $40 million media campaign against the Republican nominee.
So why isn't it being quoted and paraphrased throughout the media? Wasn't that Stephanopoulos's defense of all the gotcha questions aimed at Obama in Wednesday's debate -- "If you look at the fall campaign, there are some clear signals from Senator Obama's opponents that all of these issues are going to be put together in a general argument"? Well, the Democratic "general argument" is in these books. So it's time to start taking notes -- right, George?
On Sunday when Stephanopoulos interviews McCain, we'll find out whether he applies the same standard. If so, here's a handy list of questions, courtesy of Cliff Schecter. My guess is that #2 and #10 will actually be asked, in a mild form -- but none of the others.
A couple of days ago we saw that when Sean Hannity suggested a line of attack against Barack Obama, George Stephanopoulos literally took dictation ("Well, I'm taking notes right now").
So the lesson to be learned from this is that Democrats should also try to drive press coverage, right?
Ah, but that's where the problem lies. The press, desperate not to be called liberal, eagerly overcorrects by absorbing and retransmitting GOP spin, particularly in election years -- but when Democrats try to dish the dirt, the press suddenly rediscovers skepticism.
See, for instance, this New York Observer review of two books that try to knock off John McCain's halo:
...neither [Cliff Schecter's The Real McCain] nor the eerily similar Free Ride [by David Brock and Paul Waldman] will convert someone who believes in Mr. McCain. These are tools for the already converted.
Mr. Schecter's book ...[is] full of passion and unconcealed bias....
Messrs. Brock and Waldman are essentially debunking a caricature. It's not a terrible story, but neither is it a revelation. Making caricatures of politicians is how journalists, and readers, organize loyalties.... Caricatures, unfair or otherwise, are the result of accumulated profiles written on deadline; they’re an inevitable by-product of a career in politics....
The argument comes up a little thin, then. The profusion of anecdotes about the "real" McCain give the impression of a vendetta, as though the authors harbor the bitter suspicion that Mr. McCain is getting away with something. Like Cliff Schecter, David Brock and Paul Waldman are unreliable narrators....
Sean Hannity, by contrast, is just a humble truth-teller, Diogenes with a blow dryer.
But you would think attention must be paid to these books -- after all, the Observer review reminds us that
Shortly after it was published last month, it became clear that Free Ride would literally be the blueprint for the assault on Mr. McCain. On April 10, Ben Smith reported in Politico that David Brock is leading a group of wealthy Democrats in a $40 million media campaign against the Republican nominee.
So why isn't it being quoted and paraphrased throughout the media? Wasn't that Stephanopoulos's defense of all the gotcha questions aimed at Obama in Wednesday's debate -- "If you look at the fall campaign, there are some clear signals from Senator Obama's opponents that all of these issues are going to be put together in a general argument"? Well, the Democratic "general argument" is in these books. So it's time to start taking notes -- right, George?
On Sunday when Stephanopoulos interviews McCain, we'll find out whether he applies the same standard. If so, here's a handy list of questions, courtesy of Cliff Schecter. My guess is that #2 and #10 will actually be asked, in a mild form -- but none of the others.
FINGER-GATE DEBUNKED
A side-angle shot posted by John Cole shows Obama was using two fingers to scratch.
Satisfied?
(Via Kevin Hayden.)
A side-angle shot posted by John Cole shows Obama was using two fingers to scratch.
Satisfied?
(Via Kevin Hayden.)
JUST KEEP ON USING ME UNTIL YOU USE ME UP
Fig. 1. Artist's depiction of the relationship between the media and the GOP spin machine.
There's something almost Escheresque or Borgesian about the way this Politico story from yesterday works -- it is what it describes:
For reasons of financial necessity, personal preference and plain politics, John McCain is gearing up to run one of the least traditional presidential campaigns in recent history....
McCain will lean heavily on the well-funded Republican National Committee. He will merge key functions of his campaign hierarchy with the RNC while also relying on an unconventional structure of 10 regional campaign mangers.
And finally -- and perhaps most importantly -- McCain will rely on free media to an unprecedented degree to get out his message in a fashion that aims to not only minimize his financial disadvantage but also drive a triangulated contrast among himself, the Democratic nominee and President Bush.
Emphasis mine -- and, in fact, the process of both describing and participating in McCain's campaign strategy is seen in that very sentence, in which the Politico helpfully tells us just what the McCain camp wants us to hear: "McCain isn't like Bush! Really! There's a notable contrast!"
The participation in the McCain strategy gets more explicit as the article continues:
...aides ... argue that by facing tough questions from reporters on his bus each day and potentially even tougher ones from audience members at frequent town hall meetings, McCain will demonstrate how he's different from two politicians who are far less accessible.
...Mark Salter, [a] top aide to McCain, says Obama is running "one buttoned-up, conventional campaign."
"Is new politics just stadium-sized crowds and lots of money?" he asks.
...McCain aides also want to paint their guy as different from an unpopular administration that prefers secrecy to transparency and friendly crowds to unpredictable ones.
"Sen. McCain believes every American should participate in the arena, and that includes people that don't agree with him," Schmidt says, taking care to note that such unscripted exchanges have waned "in the last decade."
...Differences between Bush and McCain will be "discussed at great length," promises one aide.
"He'll be direct about it. He's never gratuitous, never disrespectful, but there are going to be policy breaks where it couldn’t be clearer." Two areas of difference McCain will highlight: global warming and spending....
So it's one-stop shopping -- you get to learn how McCain will count on the press to relay his message for him at no charge ... and then you get to see the press do it!
Don't you just love the efficiency and convenience of modern media life?
Fig. 1. Artist's depiction of the relationship between the media and the GOP spin machine.
There's something almost Escheresque or Borgesian about the way this Politico story from yesterday works -- it is what it describes:
For reasons of financial necessity, personal preference and plain politics, John McCain is gearing up to run one of the least traditional presidential campaigns in recent history....
McCain will lean heavily on the well-funded Republican National Committee. He will merge key functions of his campaign hierarchy with the RNC while also relying on an unconventional structure of 10 regional campaign mangers.
And finally -- and perhaps most importantly -- McCain will rely on free media to an unprecedented degree to get out his message in a fashion that aims to not only minimize his financial disadvantage but also drive a triangulated contrast among himself, the Democratic nominee and President Bush.
Emphasis mine -- and, in fact, the process of both describing and participating in McCain's campaign strategy is seen in that very sentence, in which the Politico helpfully tells us just what the McCain camp wants us to hear: "McCain isn't like Bush! Really! There's a notable contrast!"
The participation in the McCain strategy gets more explicit as the article continues:
...aides ... argue that by facing tough questions from reporters on his bus each day and potentially even tougher ones from audience members at frequent town hall meetings, McCain will demonstrate how he's different from two politicians who are far less accessible.
...Mark Salter, [a] top aide to McCain, says Obama is running "one buttoned-up, conventional campaign."
"Is new politics just stadium-sized crowds and lots of money?" he asks.
...McCain aides also want to paint their guy as different from an unpopular administration that prefers secrecy to transparency and friendly crowds to unpredictable ones.
"Sen. McCain believes every American should participate in the arena, and that includes people that don't agree with him," Schmidt says, taking care to note that such unscripted exchanges have waned "in the last decade."
...Differences between Bush and McCain will be "discussed at great length," promises one aide.
"He'll be direct about it. He's never gratuitous, never disrespectful, but there are going to be policy breaks where it couldn’t be clearer." Two areas of difference McCain will highlight: global warming and spending....
So it's one-stop shopping -- you get to learn how McCain will count on the press to relay his message for him at no charge ... and then you get to see the press do it!
Don't you just love the efficiency and convenience of modern media life?
EVEN I -- A DEMOCRAT -- AM APPALLED THAT A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WOULD GIVE THE FINGER!
Shocking. Simply shocking.
(I'm told here that this incident took place "at an Austin production facility during the later months of Bush's term as Texas governor.")
...Oh, I'm sorry -- you're looking for the video of Barack Obama scratching his face first with his pinky, then with either his middle finger or his middle and index finger, clearly because he (a) has a mild itch or (b) semi-consciously uses scratching to send the body-language signal "Rattled? Not me, Jack." That video is here. As I type, this is the lead blog story in America, according to Memeorandum. Kevin Hayden, recognizing the video's status as the new Zapruder film, links to another angle on the incident (blown up to full screen size) here.
There's nothing untoward going on here. The bloggers who say they think he's giving the finger are lying to you or lying to themselves. Our political culture is appalling, and the blogosphere is now obviously part of the problem, not part of the solution. If this is the best we can do, we're no better than Gibson and Stephanopoulos or (insert media enemy of your choice).
By the way, this is how you give the finger at a public appearance, if you're a (Republican) politician. (Story in the penultimate paragraph here.)
*****
UPDATE: I reproduce a rather definitive debunking photo here.
Shocking. Simply shocking.
(I'm told here that this incident took place "at an Austin production facility during the later months of Bush's term as Texas governor.")
...Oh, I'm sorry -- you're looking for the video of Barack Obama scratching his face first with his pinky, then with either his middle finger or his middle and index finger, clearly because he (a) has a mild itch or (b) semi-consciously uses scratching to send the body-language signal "Rattled? Not me, Jack." That video is here. As I type, this is the lead blog story in America, according to Memeorandum. Kevin Hayden, recognizing the video's status as the new Zapruder film, links to another angle on the incident (blown up to full screen size) here.
There's nothing untoward going on here. The bloggers who say they think he's giving the finger are lying to you or lying to themselves. Our political culture is appalling, and the blogosphere is now obviously part of the problem, not part of the solution. If this is the best we can do, we're no better than Gibson and Stephanopoulos or (insert media enemy of your choice).
By the way, this is how you give the finger at a public appearance, if you're a (Republican) politician. (Story in the penultimate paragraph here.)
*****
UPDATE: I reproduce a rather definitive debunking photo here.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
STEPHANOPOULOS: WE'RE JUST THE GOP'S ADVANCE TEAM
From an interview with George Stephanopoulos by Greg Sargent of Talking Points Memo:
...When I asked him whether asking about Obama's derelict approach to his flag lapel pin risked making it look like right-wing frames were dictating the line of questioning, Stephanopoulos said:
"Sure, there's a risk." But he added: "If you look at the fall campaign, there are some clear signals from Senator Obama's opponents that all of these issues are going to be put together in a general argument. They all go back to that same theme." ...
In other words, it doesn't matter how irrelevant the issue is, or how low the blows are going to be -- if the Republicans are planning to aim low in the fall, the press simply has to reinforce their efforts by doing the same thing first.
This is, I think, a new low for the mainstream press. Even in recent elections, the press wasn't this bad. By this Stephanopoulos standard, there should have a ten-minute inquisition in a 2004 debate about whether John Kerry really shot himself to get a Purple Heart; Bill Clinton, back in '96, should have been asked if he and his wife were responsible for killing Ron Brown, Vincent Foster, and dozens of other people; and in '88 Michael Dukakis should have been asked whether his wife had onced an American flag. After all, each of these stories, was part of what was "put together in a general argument" by the people campaigning against those Democrats, if only under the radar in some cases. Hell, even though he'd already answered it, I suppose JFK should have been asked a debate question in 1960 about whether he planned to suspend the Constitution and hand the reins of the U.S. government over to the Vatican. Why not, if scurrilousness isn't a disqualifier?
From an interview with George Stephanopoulos by Greg Sargent of Talking Points Memo:
...When I asked him whether asking about Obama's derelict approach to his flag lapel pin risked making it look like right-wing frames were dictating the line of questioning, Stephanopoulos said:
"Sure, there's a risk." But he added: "If you look at the fall campaign, there are some clear signals from Senator Obama's opponents that all of these issues are going to be put together in a general argument. They all go back to that same theme." ...
In other words, it doesn't matter how irrelevant the issue is, or how low the blows are going to be -- if the Republicans are planning to aim low in the fall, the press simply has to reinforce their efforts by doing the same thing first.
This is, I think, a new low for the mainstream press. Even in recent elections, the press wasn't this bad. By this Stephanopoulos standard, there should have a ten-minute inquisition in a 2004 debate about whether John Kerry really shot himself to get a Purple Heart; Bill Clinton, back in '96, should have been asked if he and his wife were responsible for killing Ron Brown, Vincent Foster, and dozens of other people; and in '88 Michael Dukakis should have been asked whether his wife had onced an American flag. After all, each of these stories, was part of what was "put together in a general argument" by the people campaigning against those Democrats, if only under the radar in some cases. Hell, even though he'd already answered it, I suppose JFK should have been asked a debate question in 1960 about whether he planned to suspend the Constitution and hand the reins of the U.S. government over to the Vatican. Why not, if scurrilousness isn't a disqualifier?
NOW WE'LL NEVER GET TO KNOCK BACK BREWSKIS WITH W.F.B.
Good point made today by a New York Times letter writer, on the Barack Obama "elitism" question:
...have the conservatives succumbed to amnesia as to forget that their movement was singlehandedly crafted by the blue blood William F. Buckley Jr.?
Yes, how good was Buckley's bowling anyway? How often did he wander into bars and drink boilermakers with guys from the steel mills?
Would any of the folks who damned the "elitist" Obama within weeks of penning gushing Buckley eulogies (I'm talking to people like you, George Will) care to respond?
****
Meanwhile, I see that this shirt is being advertised on the Drudge Report:
I wonder if the check for that ad buy goes to Drudge's $1.4 million Mediterranean-style stucco house on Rivo Alto Island in Miami or his $1-million-plus condominium in Miami's Four Seasons hotel.
Good point made today by a New York Times letter writer, on the Barack Obama "elitism" question:
...have the conservatives succumbed to amnesia as to forget that their movement was singlehandedly crafted by the blue blood William F. Buckley Jr.?
Yes, how good was Buckley's bowling anyway? How often did he wander into bars and drink boilermakers with guys from the steel mills?
Would any of the folks who damned the "elitist" Obama within weeks of penning gushing Buckley eulogies (I'm talking to people like you, George Will) care to respond?
****
Meanwhile, I see that this shirt is being advertised on the Drudge Report:
I wonder if the check for that ad buy goes to Drudge's $1.4 million Mediterranean-style stucco house on Rivo Alto Island in Miami or his $1-million-plus condominium in Miami's Four Seasons hotel.
SELLING THE "CURE" FOR THE CONDITION THEY'VE DIAGNOSED
We all know that the right has "worked the refs" for a generation, persistently decrying "liberal media bias" so a guilt-ridden press will feel compelled to give Republicans a break and slam Democrats.
But the right does more than that. Like a sleazy fortune teller who not only "discovers" that a bad spell has been placed on the customer but (for the right price) knows just how to lift it, the right diagnoses liberal bias and provides the remedy.
Thus, we had George Stephanopoulos, a day before the debate, appearing on Sean Hannity's radio show -- hoping, no dopubt, that Hannity would absolve him of bias. And what do you know? In fact, Sean had the cure:
Hannity, who for months has been aggressively pushing a story about Barack Obama's connections to a former member of a radical anti-Vietnam 1970s organization called the Weather Underground, interviewed Stephanopoulos on his radio show on Tuesday, where he pressed the ABC host to ask Obama about this:
Meanwhile, Charlie Gibson struggles to compensate for the frou-frou Northeast Corridor elitism he's surely been told by right-wingers is his fatal flaw, so he goes out to hear the voice of "the people" -- and what "the people" are saying is what they're picking up from the right-wing media:
MR. GIBSON: Just to add to that, I noticed you put [an American flag pin] on yesterday. But -- you've talked about this before, but it comes up again and again when we talk to voters. And as you may know, it is all over the Internet.
This is how it works -- the right says the mainstream press is out of touch with ordinary Americans, while feeding the press and ordinary Americans a steady diet of phony talking points that it then portrays as genuine populist concerns. It's a great scam.
We all know that the right has "worked the refs" for a generation, persistently decrying "liberal media bias" so a guilt-ridden press will feel compelled to give Republicans a break and slam Democrats.
But the right does more than that. Like a sleazy fortune teller who not only "discovers" that a bad spell has been placed on the customer but (for the right price) knows just how to lift it, the right diagnoses liberal bias and provides the remedy.
Thus, we had George Stephanopoulos, a day before the debate, appearing on Sean Hannity's radio show -- hoping, no dopubt, that Hannity would absolve him of bias. And what do you know? In fact, Sean had the cure:
Hannity, who for months has been aggressively pushing a story about Barack Obama's connections to a former member of a radical anti-Vietnam 1970s organization called the Weather Underground, interviewed Stephanopoulos on his radio show on Tuesday, where he pressed the ABC host to ask Obama about this:
HANNITY: There are two questions that I don't think anybody has asked Barack Obama, and I don't know if this is going to be on your list tomorrow. One is -- the only time he's ever been asked about his association with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist from the Weather Underground who on 9/11 of all days in the New York Times was saying "I don't regret setting bombs. I don't think we did enough." When asked about it by the Politico, David Axelrod said that they have a friendly relationship, and that they had done a number of speeches together and that they sat on a board together. Is that a question you might ask?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, I'm taking notes right now....
Meanwhile, Charlie Gibson struggles to compensate for the frou-frou Northeast Corridor elitism he's surely been told by right-wingers is his fatal flaw, so he goes out to hear the voice of "the people" -- and what "the people" are saying is what they're picking up from the right-wing media:
MR. GIBSON: Just to add to that, I noticed you put [an American flag pin] on yesterday. But -- you've talked about this before, but it comes up again and again when we talk to voters. And as you may know, it is all over the Internet.
This is how it works -- the right says the mainstream press is out of touch with ordinary Americans, while feeding the press and ordinary Americans a steady diet of phony talking points that it then portrays as genuine populist concerns. It's a great scam.
BROOKS: IT'S OK AS LONG AS YOU DON'T DO IT TO A REPUBLICAN
In a debate post-mortem last night, David Brooks went contrarian on us and said that ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos asked brilliant, thoroughly relevant questions -- because it's a good thing to ask about issues that seem insignificant or tangential.
Funny thing, though -- Brooks didn't always feel that way.
Here's Brooks just after last night's debate:
...Democrats, and especially Obama supporters, are going to jump all over ABC for the choice of topics: too many gaffe questions, not enough policy questions.
I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist's job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that....
We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It's legitimate to see how the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues....
Now here's Brooks in a sneering review he published last August of The Political Brain by Drew Westen, a psychology professor at Emory University:
...Westen urges Democratic candidates to go for the gut, and includes a number of speeches that he wishes Democratic candidates had given. He wishes, for example, Al Gore had hit George Bush harder for being a drunk. He wishes Gore had interrupted a presidential debate and barked at Bush, "If someone is going to restore dignity to the Oval Office, it isn't a man who drank his way through three decades of his life and got investigated by his father's own Securities and Exchange Commission for swindling people out of their retirement savings."
At another point, he imagines Gore exploding: "Why don't you tell us how many times you got behind the wheel of a car with a few drinks under your belt, endangering your neighbors' kids? Where I come from, we call that a drunk." If Democrats would go for people's primitive passions in this way, Westen argues, they'd win elections.
This thesis raises some interesting questions. First, why did someone with so little faith in rational inquiry go into academia, and what does he do to those who disagree with him at Emory faculty meetings, especially recovering alcoholics?
...Finally, if voter decisions are driven by the sort of crude emotional outbursts Westen recommends, ... then shouldn't we abandon this whole democracy thing? Shouldn't we have a coup, led perhaps by the Emory psychology department, which could prevent the brutish and hate-filled from ever gaining control? ...
So, let's sum up. It's OK for reporters to hammer Obama on flag pins and incidental contact with '60s radicals. It's OK for Poppy Bush to run an Atwater campaign based on Michael Dukakis's alleged attitude toward the flag. Reporters and Republicans can always attack Democrats.
But a Democrat (or a pro-Democratic college professor) attacking a Republican in a similar way? Heaven forfend.
In a debate post-mortem last night, David Brooks went contrarian on us and said that ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos asked brilliant, thoroughly relevant questions -- because it's a good thing to ask about issues that seem insignificant or tangential.
Funny thing, though -- Brooks didn't always feel that way.
Here's Brooks just after last night's debate:
...Democrats, and especially Obama supporters, are going to jump all over ABC for the choice of topics: too many gaffe questions, not enough policy questions.
I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist's job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that....
We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It's legitimate to see how the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues....
Now here's Brooks in a sneering review he published last August of The Political Brain by Drew Westen, a psychology professor at Emory University:
...Westen urges Democratic candidates to go for the gut, and includes a number of speeches that he wishes Democratic candidates had given. He wishes, for example, Al Gore had hit George Bush harder for being a drunk. He wishes Gore had interrupted a presidential debate and barked at Bush, "If someone is going to restore dignity to the Oval Office, it isn't a man who drank his way through three decades of his life and got investigated by his father's own Securities and Exchange Commission for swindling people out of their retirement savings."
At another point, he imagines Gore exploding: "Why don't you tell us how many times you got behind the wheel of a car with a few drinks under your belt, endangering your neighbors' kids? Where I come from, we call that a drunk." If Democrats would go for people's primitive passions in this way, Westen argues, they'd win elections.
This thesis raises some interesting questions. First, why did someone with so little faith in rational inquiry go into academia, and what does he do to those who disagree with him at Emory faculty meetings, especially recovering alcoholics?
...Finally, if voter decisions are driven by the sort of crude emotional outbursts Westen recommends, ... then shouldn't we abandon this whole democracy thing? Shouldn't we have a coup, led perhaps by the Emory psychology department, which could prevent the brutish and hate-filled from ever gaining control? ...
So, let's sum up. It's OK for reporters to hammer Obama on flag pins and incidental contact with '60s radicals. It's OK for Poppy Bush to run an Atwater campaign based on Michael Dukakis's alleged attitude toward the flag. Reporters and Republicans can always attack Democrats.
But a Democrat (or a pro-Democratic college professor) attacking a Republican in a similar way? Heaven forfend.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
THE REPUBLICAN TALKING-POINT DUMP, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE
Going into tonight's debate, it seemed unlikely that ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos could top Brian Williams and Tim Russert for sheer godawfulness in debate moderation. In several debates in the past few months, they've set the bar pretty high.
But tonight, at least for the first hour, Gibson and Stephanopoulos cleared the bar.
After a January debate, Steve Benen chided Williams and Russert:
The first question of any substance came 40 minutes into the event. 40. The entire debate was two hours long, which means Tim Russert, Brian Williams, and NBC's Natalie Morales (who was relegated to reading emails to the candidates) spent the first third of the debate covering nothing but process, politics, and horserace.
First third? Tonight it was closer to the first half. The debate began at 8:00 P.M. Eastern and was scheduled for ninety minutes (it ran long), but the first question of any substance didn't come until 8:53 -- nearly an hour in.
And were you appalled in February when Russert repeatedly asked Obama about Louis Farrakhan? Well, tonight Obama had to answer questions about Farrakhan and William Ayers, two people no one claims have real ties to Obama. Take that, Russert!
The debate was lousy with right-wing talking points. Jeremiah Wright. Tuzla. Supposed lack of respect for the flag. (One reason Gibson said it was legitimate to ask Obama about this -- the question came from an ordinary citizen, on videotape -- was that "it is all over the Internet.") Past pledges to ban handguns. Alleged ignorance of right-wing "laws" of economics. ("But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up," Gibson said flatly at one point.) Most GOP attacks right now are aimed at Obama; most of these attacks were ... aimed at Obama. The Tuzla quetioning was brief; the "bitter" questioning and Wright questioning were endless.
People say, "Can Obama really withstand the attacks he'll face from the GOP in the general election?" But that's not the right question. The right question is: Can Obama withstand the attacks he'll face from the mainstream press parroting the GOP? That should be his biggest concern. He struggled tonight, as if he didn't realize he was facing any Democratic presidential candidate's real enemy. He needs to learn where the true threat lies. He needs to learn that, in a presidential election year, the press always wants Republican Daddy.
Going into tonight's debate, it seemed unlikely that ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos could top Brian Williams and Tim Russert for sheer godawfulness in debate moderation. In several debates in the past few months, they've set the bar pretty high.
But tonight, at least for the first hour, Gibson and Stephanopoulos cleared the bar.
After a January debate, Steve Benen chided Williams and Russert:
The first question of any substance came 40 minutes into the event. 40. The entire debate was two hours long, which means Tim Russert, Brian Williams, and NBC's Natalie Morales (who was relegated to reading emails to the candidates) spent the first third of the debate covering nothing but process, politics, and horserace.
First third? Tonight it was closer to the first half. The debate began at 8:00 P.M. Eastern and was scheduled for ninety minutes (it ran long), but the first question of any substance didn't come until 8:53 -- nearly an hour in.
And were you appalled in February when Russert repeatedly asked Obama about Louis Farrakhan? Well, tonight Obama had to answer questions about Farrakhan and William Ayers, two people no one claims have real ties to Obama. Take that, Russert!
The debate was lousy with right-wing talking points. Jeremiah Wright. Tuzla. Supposed lack of respect for the flag. (One reason Gibson said it was legitimate to ask Obama about this -- the question came from an ordinary citizen, on videotape -- was that "it is all over the Internet.") Past pledges to ban handguns. Alleged ignorance of right-wing "laws" of economics. ("But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up," Gibson said flatly at one point.) Most GOP attacks right now are aimed at Obama; most of these attacks were ... aimed at Obama. The Tuzla quetioning was brief; the "bitter" questioning and Wright questioning were endless.
People say, "Can Obama really withstand the attacks he'll face from the GOP in the general election?" But that's not the right question. The right question is: Can Obama withstand the attacks he'll face from the mainstream press parroting the GOP? That should be his biggest concern. He struggled tonight, as if he didn't realize he was facing any Democratic presidential candidate's real enemy. He needs to learn where the true threat lies. He needs to learn that, in a presidential election year, the press always wants Republican Daddy.
IS THE LONG RACE VINDICATING OBAMA'S ARGUMENT ABOUT OUR POLITICS?
When it became clear that the Democratic race would go on far longer than anyone expected, some people argued that it was actually good for the party. They said it was good because it drew attention away from John McCain, and because it would either toughen Barack Obama up or (the Clinton campaign's line) generate an Obama stumble that would allow Hillary to wrest the nomination from him.
But if something's happening that's good for the Democrats, I don't think it's one of those things. It's something else: The campaign has essentially turned into what Barack Obama says is wrong with American politics. I think it's making his message resonate; we're experiences just the sort of mud wrestling Obama says he wants to get beyond. When he says "hope," this is a big part of what he's talking about: hope that we can actually get something done because our politics won't suck in this precisely this way.
I wonder if that's why he's holding up much better than expected -- well ahead of Clinton nationwide among Democrats, according to Gallup, far ahead of her on electability according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll, and within striking distance in Pennsylvania (and beating McCain in both national polls). The ABC/WaPo results hint at that:
The number of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who describe the tone of the contest as "mostly negative" has risen by 14 points since February, from 27 percent then to 41 percent now. Those who say so mainly blame Clinton over Obama, by nearly a 4-1 margin, 52 percent to 14 percent. (An additional 25 percent blame both equally.)
In a similar result, half of Democrats say their candidates are "arguing about things that really aren't that important" rather than discussing real issues.
So maybe he'll actually benefit from even more Clinton "kitchen sink" campaigning, or a few more days of pundits and operatives parsing the word "bitter" -- he's the candidate who doesn't think that's endlessly amusing or relevant to the state of the nation, which puts him in agreement with the public.
When it became clear that the Democratic race would go on far longer than anyone expected, some people argued that it was actually good for the party. They said it was good because it drew attention away from John McCain, and because it would either toughen Barack Obama up or (the Clinton campaign's line) generate an Obama stumble that would allow Hillary to wrest the nomination from him.
But if something's happening that's good for the Democrats, I don't think it's one of those things. It's something else: The campaign has essentially turned into what Barack Obama says is wrong with American politics. I think it's making his message resonate; we're experiences just the sort of mud wrestling Obama says he wants to get beyond. When he says "hope," this is a big part of what he's talking about: hope that we can actually get something done because our politics won't suck in this precisely this way.
I wonder if that's why he's holding up much better than expected -- well ahead of Clinton nationwide among Democrats, according to Gallup, far ahead of her on electability according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll, and within striking distance in Pennsylvania (and beating McCain in both national polls). The ABC/WaPo results hint at that:
The number of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who describe the tone of the contest as "mostly negative" has risen by 14 points since February, from 27 percent then to 41 percent now. Those who say so mainly blame Clinton over Obama, by nearly a 4-1 margin, 52 percent to 14 percent. (An additional 25 percent blame both equally.)
In a similar result, half of Democrats say their candidates are "arguing about things that really aren't that important" rather than discussing real issues.
So maybe he'll actually benefit from even more Clinton "kitchen sink" campaigning, or a few more days of pundits and operatives parsing the word "bitter" -- he's the candidate who doesn't think that's endlessly amusing or relevant to the state of the nation, which puts him in agreement with the public.
TOLD YA (AND I'M SURE YOU'RE SICK OF HEARING ME SAY THAT)
From The Hill:
Lieberman willing to star at Republican convention
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), the Democratic Party's 2000 vice presidential nominee, is leaving open the possibility of giving a keynote address on behalf of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) at the Republican National Convention in September.
Republicans close to the McCain campaign say Lieberman's appearance at the convention, possibly before a national primetime audience, could help make the case that the presumptive GOP nominee has a record of crossing the aisle....
"Possibility"? "Possibly"? Oh, give me a break -- this will happen, as I've predicted over and over and over again for almost two years.
Why wouldn't it happen? Because Lieberman fears the wrath and fury of the take-no-prisoners Democrats?
...If Democrats pick up more seats as expected in November, and Lieberman angers Democrats along the campaign trail, some privately expect there might be an attempt to deny him his bid to retain his chairmanship.
One Democratic leadership aide said losing his chairmanship could happen in that scenario, but "the bar would have to be very high."
Endorsing the other party's presidential candidate? Pondering a high-profile appearance at the other party's convention? Red-baiting the likely nominee of the party you caucus with, who's a fellow senator? All that put together still doesn't clear the bar?
Oh, but there are more important matters than, y'know, actually taking one's own side in a dispute:
...Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has a close relationship with Lieberman.
Unlike a number of Democratic colleagues who backed Lieberman's challenger Ned Lamont after the 2006 primary, Reid offered words of praise for the senator, saying he would not "turn on Joe." Reid called Lieberman and promised him a chairmanship if he won reelection, a move that angered some Lamont supporters.
Even though Reid may not need Lieberman next Congress to claim a Senate majority, he told Lieberman in private conversations that he would protect his seniority....
When asked Tuesday if Lieberman's chairmanship was at risk next Congress, Reid said succinctly: "No."
"We have one difference of opinion, maybe two with Sen. Lieberman," said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a prominent supporter of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) presidential candidacy. "As a whip, I can tell you time and again, he's been there when we’ve needed him." ...
Not good enough. You people are pathetic.
This is bad because the speech won't be Zell Miller, it will be Zell Miller plus. The plus is the fact that the press -- still -- treats Lieberman as the cuddly, adorable, highly appealing independent (I almost typed "maverick") who'll make swing voters sit up and take notice. Here's the Hill story with the conventional wisdom:
Republicans close to the McCain campaign say Lieberman's appearance at the convention, possibly before a national primetime audience, could help make the case that the presumptive GOP nominee has a record of crossing the aisle. That could appeal to much-needed independent voters.
Endless repetition of the notion that support from Lieberman equals support from a Democrat makes it seem true.
That's why, well before this speech happens, the Obama campaign needs to neutralize Lieberman. Obama needs to make sure that everyone in American realizes that that elfin, soft-spoken, apparently nice guy is possibly the biggest apologist in America for a war the vast majority of the country hates. Obama needs to portray him as a dishonest faux-naif who acts shocked, shocked, when anyone dares to suggest that he's exactly what he is, a Republican apparatchik still pretending not to be one.
Will that happen? I doubt it. But if it doesn't, this speech will do real damage. The press will see to that.
From The Hill:
Lieberman willing to star at Republican convention
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), the Democratic Party's 2000 vice presidential nominee, is leaving open the possibility of giving a keynote address on behalf of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) at the Republican National Convention in September.
Republicans close to the McCain campaign say Lieberman's appearance at the convention, possibly before a national primetime audience, could help make the case that the presumptive GOP nominee has a record of crossing the aisle....
"Possibility"? "Possibly"? Oh, give me a break -- this will happen, as I've predicted over and over and over again for almost two years.
Why wouldn't it happen? Because Lieberman fears the wrath and fury of the take-no-prisoners Democrats?
...If Democrats pick up more seats as expected in November, and Lieberman angers Democrats along the campaign trail, some privately expect there might be an attempt to deny him his bid to retain his chairmanship.
One Democratic leadership aide said losing his chairmanship could happen in that scenario, but "the bar would have to be very high."
Endorsing the other party's presidential candidate? Pondering a high-profile appearance at the other party's convention? Red-baiting the likely nominee of the party you caucus with, who's a fellow senator? All that put together still doesn't clear the bar?
Oh, but there are more important matters than, y'know, actually taking one's own side in a dispute:
...Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has a close relationship with Lieberman.
Unlike a number of Democratic colleagues who backed Lieberman's challenger Ned Lamont after the 2006 primary, Reid offered words of praise for the senator, saying he would not "turn on Joe." Reid called Lieberman and promised him a chairmanship if he won reelection, a move that angered some Lamont supporters.
Even though Reid may not need Lieberman next Congress to claim a Senate majority, he told Lieberman in private conversations that he would protect his seniority....
When asked Tuesday if Lieberman's chairmanship was at risk next Congress, Reid said succinctly: "No."
"We have one difference of opinion, maybe two with Sen. Lieberman," said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a prominent supporter of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) presidential candidacy. "As a whip, I can tell you time and again, he's been there when we’ve needed him." ...
Not good enough. You people are pathetic.
This is bad because the speech won't be Zell Miller, it will be Zell Miller plus. The plus is the fact that the press -- still -- treats Lieberman as the cuddly, adorable, highly appealing independent (I almost typed "maverick") who'll make swing voters sit up and take notice. Here's the Hill story with the conventional wisdom:
Republicans close to the McCain campaign say Lieberman's appearance at the convention, possibly before a national primetime audience, could help make the case that the presumptive GOP nominee has a record of crossing the aisle. That could appeal to much-needed independent voters.
Endless repetition of the notion that support from Lieberman equals support from a Democrat makes it seem true.
That's why, well before this speech happens, the Obama campaign needs to neutralize Lieberman. Obama needs to make sure that everyone in American realizes that that elfin, soft-spoken, apparently nice guy is possibly the biggest apologist in America for a war the vast majority of the country hates. Obama needs to portray him as a dishonest faux-naif who acts shocked, shocked, when anyone dares to suggest that he's exactly what he is, a Republican apparatchik still pretending not to be one.
Will that happen? I doubt it. But if it doesn't, this speech will do real damage. The press will see to that.
WE THINK YOU'RE STUPID, ELITIST, AMERICA-HATING IDIOTS, BUT WE SAY THAT IN A COMPLETELY NON-ANGRY, NON-BITTER WAY
Maureen Dowd today:
I'm not bitter.
I'm not writing this just because I grew up in a house with a gun, a strong Catholic faith, an immigrant father, brothers with anti-illegal immigrant sentiments....
My family morphed from Kennedy Democrats into Reagan Republicans not because they were angry, but because they felt more comfortable with conservative values. Members of my clan sometimes were overly cloistered. But they weren't bitter; they were bonding....
Yeah, I remember MoDo's brothers. In particular, I remember a column from just after the 2004 election that was essentially written by one of them, after Dowd introduced them:
...This year [at Thanksgiving], my brothers were on the warpath about news reports that Maryland public schools did not teach about Thanksgiving from a religious perspective. "Who do they think the Pilgrims thanked?" demanded Martin. "God."
There are moments -- when my brothers are sharing some snarky thing Rush Limbaugh said about me, or the latest bon mot from Pat Buchanan, with whom they grew up -- that I'm tempted to stuff my ears with my mom's potato stuffing, or go off and read a book by David Sedaris about normal family life.
People often ask me why President Bush inspires such passionate support. My brother Kevin, a salesman who lives in Montgomery County, Md., can answer that; here is a recent e-mail message, trimmed for space, he sent to friends:
"Ladies and Gentlemen,
Now, just as four years ago, I breathe a huge sigh of relief and rejoice in the common sense of the American voting public. Congratulations to President Bush for winning re-election in a poker game played with a stacked deck. No candidate, including Richard Nixon, ever had to endure the biased and unfair tactics of our major media in their attempt to influence the outcome of an election. ... He never complained, just systematically set about delivering the same consistent message. You may remember that four years ago, I felt physically ill watching the Democrats try to legislate their way to the presidency. ...
A very big thank you to Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Rob Reiner, Bill Maher, Barbra Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Al Franken and Jon Stewart for your involvement. You certainly energized the base. Now, please have the courage of your convictions and leave the country....
To The New York Times and The Washington Post -- If Bush and Reagan were so stupid, how did they both go four for four in elections involving two of our biggest states and the presidency without your endorsement? ...
To Gavin Newsom -- Thanks for all of the great shots of the San Francisco couples embracing their mates at City Hall in direct defiance of the law....
And on and on.
Nope, nothing angry or bitter there, right?
Christ, the guy still thinks Nixon was mistreated.
Maureen Dowd today:
I'm not bitter.
I'm not writing this just because I grew up in a house with a gun, a strong Catholic faith, an immigrant father, brothers with anti-illegal immigrant sentiments....
My family morphed from Kennedy Democrats into Reagan Republicans not because they were angry, but because they felt more comfortable with conservative values. Members of my clan sometimes were overly cloistered. But they weren't bitter; they were bonding....
Yeah, I remember MoDo's brothers. In particular, I remember a column from just after the 2004 election that was essentially written by one of them, after Dowd introduced them:
...This year [at Thanksgiving], my brothers were on the warpath about news reports that Maryland public schools did not teach about Thanksgiving from a religious perspective. "Who do they think the Pilgrims thanked?" demanded Martin. "God."
There are moments -- when my brothers are sharing some snarky thing Rush Limbaugh said about me, or the latest bon mot from Pat Buchanan, with whom they grew up -- that I'm tempted to stuff my ears with my mom's potato stuffing, or go off and read a book by David Sedaris about normal family life.
People often ask me why President Bush inspires such passionate support. My brother Kevin, a salesman who lives in Montgomery County, Md., can answer that; here is a recent e-mail message, trimmed for space, he sent to friends:
"Ladies and Gentlemen,
Now, just as four years ago, I breathe a huge sigh of relief and rejoice in the common sense of the American voting public. Congratulations to President Bush for winning re-election in a poker game played with a stacked deck. No candidate, including Richard Nixon, ever had to endure the biased and unfair tactics of our major media in their attempt to influence the outcome of an election. ... He never complained, just systematically set about delivering the same consistent message. You may remember that four years ago, I felt physically ill watching the Democrats try to legislate their way to the presidency. ...
A very big thank you to Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Rob Reiner, Bill Maher, Barbra Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Al Franken and Jon Stewart for your involvement. You certainly energized the base. Now, please have the courage of your convictions and leave the country....
To The New York Times and The Washington Post -- If Bush and Reagan were so stupid, how did they both go four for four in elections involving two of our biggest states and the presidency without your endorsement? ...
To Gavin Newsom -- Thanks for all of the great shots of the San Francisco couples embracing their mates at City Hall in direct defiance of the law....
And on and on.
Nope, nothing angry or bitter there, right?
Christ, the guy still thinks Nixon was mistreated.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE, I TAKE IT ALL BACK
I've criticized Saturday Night Live recently, but I'm starting to realize that I was just (understandably) confused about what the show was trying to do.
Look at the sketch excerpt below, from the February 23 show. I thought it was SNL's idea of how the Democratic race was going at the time. In fact, it was a prediction of how the general election race would unfold -- and it's a remarkably accurate prediction. I was confused because the actor playing John McCain had short black hair, while Barack Obama was played by a blond woman; also, they were called by the wrong names. (I guess you get glitches like that on live TV.)
Now that I understand that the sketch was really a general election prognostication, I can see its brilliance. Just watch how the press reacts to Fred Armisen, playing McCain, while Amy Poehler (playing Obama) gets the short end of the stick:
Spot on! It's just like real life:
...John McCain and Barack Obama both appeared before the nation's newspaper editors yesterday. The putative Republican presidential nominee was given a box of doughnuts and a standing ovation. The likely Democratic nominee was likened to a terrorist.
At a luncheon for the editors hosted by the Associated Press, AP Chairman Dean Singleton quizzed Obama about whether he would send more troops to Afghanistan, where "Obama bin Laden is still at large?"
"I think that was Osama bin Laden," the candidate answered....
McCain's moderators, the AP's Ron Fournier and Liz Sidoti, greeted McCain with a box of Dunkin' Donuts. "We spend quite a bit of time with you on the back of the Straight Talk Express asking you questions, and what we've decided to do today was invite everyone else along on the ride," Sidoti explained. "We even brought you your favorite treat."
McCain opened the offering. "Oh, yes, with sprinkles!" he said....
*****
Seriously, was it less than two months ago that we were all fixated on the press's "love affair" with Obama? Anyone remember that "love affair"? I barely do either.
Yeah, maybe there was an affair, but that's all it was -- an affair. The reporters thought the sex was great, but we were crazy if we thought they'd ever end their long and successful plural marriage with the Daddy Party and John McCain.
I've criticized Saturday Night Live recently, but I'm starting to realize that I was just (understandably) confused about what the show was trying to do.
Look at the sketch excerpt below, from the February 23 show. I thought it was SNL's idea of how the Democratic race was going at the time. In fact, it was a prediction of how the general election race would unfold -- and it's a remarkably accurate prediction. I was confused because the actor playing John McCain had short black hair, while Barack Obama was played by a blond woman; also, they were called by the wrong names. (I guess you get glitches like that on live TV.)
Now that I understand that the sketch was really a general election prognostication, I can see its brilliance. Just watch how the press reacts to Fred Armisen, playing McCain, while Amy Poehler (playing Obama) gets the short end of the stick:
Spot on! It's just like real life:
...John McCain and Barack Obama both appeared before the nation's newspaper editors yesterday. The putative Republican presidential nominee was given a box of doughnuts and a standing ovation. The likely Democratic nominee was likened to a terrorist.
At a luncheon for the editors hosted by the Associated Press, AP Chairman Dean Singleton quizzed Obama about whether he would send more troops to Afghanistan, where "Obama bin Laden is still at large?"
"I think that was Osama bin Laden," the candidate answered....
McCain's moderators, the AP's Ron Fournier and Liz Sidoti, greeted McCain with a box of Dunkin' Donuts. "We spend quite a bit of time with you on the back of the Straight Talk Express asking you questions, and what we've decided to do today was invite everyone else along on the ride," Sidoti explained. "We even brought you your favorite treat."
McCain opened the offering. "Oh, yes, with sprinkles!" he said....
*****
Seriously, was it less than two months ago that we were all fixated on the press's "love affair" with Obama? Anyone remember that "love affair"? I barely do either.
Yeah, maybe there was an affair, but that's all it was -- an affair. The reporters thought the sex was great, but we were crazy if we thought they'd ever end their long and successful plural marriage with the Daddy Party and John McCain.
THEY LAUGH ALIKE, THEY WALK ALIKE, AT TIMES THEY EVEN TALK ALIKE...
May I just say that I really like this?
It's a good, solid ad. I actually like the fact that it's not clever -- indie political ads from lefties sometimes try way too hard to be "different." It's clean and direct, and the matching quotes from Bush and McCain are quite damning.
And I don't agree with Matt Yglesias that the first ad should have dealt with foreign policy. This is the subject area in which McCain looks not just wrong but weak; this kind of attack is the most efficient way to get him down off his pedestal. Attacks on his foreign policy can come later.
This is the first ad from Progressive Media USA under its new chair, David Brock -- and, alas, we're told that it
will be running on cable beginning tomorrow and can be seen in D.C. on CNN and MSNBC -- which is to say, it's a small buy aimed at an insider audience of potential future donors, political operatives, and the like.
Because, y'know, it's not as if George Soros and his acquaintances are wealthy guys or anything. Ah, but I'm sure that, after they hold a few spaghetti suppers at the Grange Hall, they'll have the money to run a couple more ads in five or six cities -- maybe seven! No doubt the full ad campaign will be up and running by, oh, the end of the year.
Seriously, though: If they're going to run this ad on a limited basis, they should run it in Pennsylvania, or Indiana -- anywhere where the stench of the endless Democratic nomination fight is at its worst. That's where a countermessage is needed the most.
May I just say that I really like this?
It's a good, solid ad. I actually like the fact that it's not clever -- indie political ads from lefties sometimes try way too hard to be "different." It's clean and direct, and the matching quotes from Bush and McCain are quite damning.
And I don't agree with Matt Yglesias that the first ad should have dealt with foreign policy. This is the subject area in which McCain looks not just wrong but weak; this kind of attack is the most efficient way to get him down off his pedestal. Attacks on his foreign policy can come later.
This is the first ad from Progressive Media USA under its new chair, David Brock -- and, alas, we're told that it
will be running on cable beginning tomorrow and can be seen in D.C. on CNN and MSNBC -- which is to say, it's a small buy aimed at an insider audience of potential future donors, political operatives, and the like.
Because, y'know, it's not as if George Soros and his acquaintances are wealthy guys or anything. Ah, but I'm sure that, after they hold a few spaghetti suppers at the Grange Hall, they'll have the money to run a couple more ads in five or six cities -- maybe seven! No doubt the full ad campaign will be up and running by, oh, the end of the year.
Seriously, though: If they're going to run this ad on a limited basis, they should run it in Pennsylvania, or Indiana -- anywhere where the stench of the endless Democratic nomination fight is at its worst. That's where a countermessage is needed the most.
TEFLON JOHN
Chris Cillizza, blogging for The Washington Post:
"Bitter" and "cling" will forever be tied to Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the same way that "Tuzla" and "the laugh" will always evoke Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) when a political junkie thinks of the 2008 Democratic race.
And what negative words and phrases will "forever be tied" to John McCain from the GOP race, or from the general election?
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. Nothing negative will cling to him. Ever. That's the law. If you think he said something dumb, or indicative of a possible weakness if he becomes president, or even just annoying, then that's your problem, you latte-swilling hippie. If a candidate makes a gaffe and the political establishment doesn't snicker at it, it never happened. And with McCain, it never happens.
Chris Cillizza, blogging for The Washington Post:
"Bitter" and "cling" will forever be tied to Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the same way that "Tuzla" and "the laugh" will always evoke Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) when a political junkie thinks of the 2008 Democratic race.
And what negative words and phrases will "forever be tied" to John McCain from the GOP race, or from the general election?
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. Nothing negative will cling to him. Ever. That's the law. If you think he said something dumb, or indicative of a possible weakness if he becomes president, or even just annoying, then that's your problem, you latte-swilling hippie. If a candidate makes a gaffe and the political establishment doesn't snicker at it, it never happened. And with McCain, it never happens.
TWO MORE THINGS McCAIN IS GOING TO GET AWAY WITH
1. The Army Times reveals that McCain doesn't quite understand what General Petraeus does for a living:
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona may not have been paying the closest of attention last week during hearings on the Bush administration's Iraq policy.
Speaking Monday at the annual meeting of the Associated Press, McCain was asked whether he, if elected, would shift combat troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to intensify the search for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
"I would not do that unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that," McCain said, referring to the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
Petraeus, however, made clear last week that he has nothing to do with the decision. Testifying last week before four congressional committees, including the Senate Armed Services Committee on which McCain is the ranking Republican, Petraeus said the decision about whether troops could be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan was not his responsibility because his portfolio is limited to the multi-national force in Iraq.
Decisions about Afghanistan would be made by others, he said....
Years ago, I was involved with a woman who knew her classical music and whose sister played in a big-city symphony orchestra. I'd come late to classical, but I'd gotten to the point where I more or less knew the canon, knew what I really liked and didn't like, and was eager to hear more. My girlfriend surprised me once by saying that I actually knew more about music than most of the classical musicians she'd met.
I thought that was absurd. But she insisted that most of the musicians of her acquaintance didn't know music -- they knew what they'd learned to play.
I don't know if that's true. There probably are at least some musicians for whom it's true. In any case, it's something I think about when I think of McCain and foreign policy.
Most people just assume he's an expert, given his military background. But it seems likely that he didn't enter Congress with any special overarching understanding of military and foreign-policy matters -- in terms of the military, he just knew about the things he used to do.
And yet nobody in the political establishment can conceive of the possibility that he might not know what he's talking about.
*****
2. This is trivia -- but it wouldn't be if McCain had a D next to his name rather than an R:
...This past Sunday, Lauren Handel, an eagle-eyed attorney from New York, was searching for a specific recipe from Giada DeLaurentis, a chef on the Food Network. Yet whenever she Googled the different ingredients in the recipe, the oddest thing happened: not only did the Food Network's site come up, as expected, but so did John McCain's campaign site.
On a section of McCain's site called "Cindy's Recipes," you can find seven recipes attributed to Cindy McCain, each with the heading "McCain Family Recipe." Ms. Handel quickly realized that some of the "McCain Family Recipes," were in fact, word-for-word copies of recipes on the Food Network site.
At least three of the "McCain Family Recipes" appear to be lifted directly from the Food Network, while at least one is a Rachael Ray recipe with minor changes....
That's from the Huffington Post. Go to the link and you can see the other purloined recipes.
Let's count the ways this would play out if the plagiarism were on the Obama or Clinton site. "Elitist"? Check. (The recipes aren't particularly fancy, but any hint of the frou-frou -- not tuna but ahi tuna? -- would be seized upon by the usual bloviators, and contrasted with the real-Amurrican hot dogs served when McCain went to the White House for President Bush's endorsement.) In either Clinton or Obama's case, the woman in the couple would be accused of inadequately representing her gender. Hillary would be called a "phony." The Obamas would be accused of having an unearned sense of "entitlement" -- of feeling they had a right to these recipes. This would be a low-level but persistent drone; we'd hear about it for days.
But it's McCain, so you'll never hear about it again.
1. The Army Times reveals that McCain doesn't quite understand what General Petraeus does for a living:
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona may not have been paying the closest of attention last week during hearings on the Bush administration's Iraq policy.
Speaking Monday at the annual meeting of the Associated Press, McCain was asked whether he, if elected, would shift combat troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to intensify the search for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
"I would not do that unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that," McCain said, referring to the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
Petraeus, however, made clear last week that he has nothing to do with the decision. Testifying last week before four congressional committees, including the Senate Armed Services Committee on which McCain is the ranking Republican, Petraeus said the decision about whether troops could be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan was not his responsibility because his portfolio is limited to the multi-national force in Iraq.
Decisions about Afghanistan would be made by others, he said....
Years ago, I was involved with a woman who knew her classical music and whose sister played in a big-city symphony orchestra. I'd come late to classical, but I'd gotten to the point where I more or less knew the canon, knew what I really liked and didn't like, and was eager to hear more. My girlfriend surprised me once by saying that I actually knew more about music than most of the classical musicians she'd met.
I thought that was absurd. But she insisted that most of the musicians of her acquaintance didn't know music -- they knew what they'd learned to play.
I don't know if that's true. There probably are at least some musicians for whom it's true. In any case, it's something I think about when I think of McCain and foreign policy.
Most people just assume he's an expert, given his military background. But it seems likely that he didn't enter Congress with any special overarching understanding of military and foreign-policy matters -- in terms of the military, he just knew about the things he used to do.
And yet nobody in the political establishment can conceive of the possibility that he might not know what he's talking about.
*****
2. This is trivia -- but it wouldn't be if McCain had a D next to his name rather than an R:
...This past Sunday, Lauren Handel, an eagle-eyed attorney from New York, was searching for a specific recipe from Giada DeLaurentis, a chef on the Food Network. Yet whenever she Googled the different ingredients in the recipe, the oddest thing happened: not only did the Food Network's site come up, as expected, but so did John McCain's campaign site.
On a section of McCain's site called "Cindy's Recipes," you can find seven recipes attributed to Cindy McCain, each with the heading "McCain Family Recipe." Ms. Handel quickly realized that some of the "McCain Family Recipes," were in fact, word-for-word copies of recipes on the Food Network site.
At least three of the "McCain Family Recipes" appear to be lifted directly from the Food Network, while at least one is a Rachael Ray recipe with minor changes....
That's from the Huffington Post. Go to the link and you can see the other purloined recipes.
Let's count the ways this would play out if the plagiarism were on the Obama or Clinton site. "Elitist"? Check. (The recipes aren't particularly fancy, but any hint of the frou-frou -- not tuna but ahi tuna? -- would be seized upon by the usual bloviators, and contrasted with the real-Amurrican hot dogs served when McCain went to the White House for President Bush's endorsement.) In either Clinton or Obama's case, the woman in the couple would be accused of inadequately representing her gender. Hillary would be called a "phony." The Obamas would be accused of having an unearned sense of "entitlement" -- of feeling they had a right to these recipes. This would be a low-level but persistent drone; we'd hear about it for days.
But it's McCain, so you'll never hear about it again.
Monday, April 14, 2008
INDIRECTLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE TRUTH?
A few pages into New York magazine's cover story about John McCain, we get a brief peek at the truth, as an unnamed GOP operative talks about Barack Obama:
"Our strategy will look a fair amount like the one that Hillary is running against him now," a party official says. "It'll build on two things: first, that he's way too inexperienced to be commander-in-chief, which not only polls incredibly well but has the virtue of being true; and, second, that he's way too liberal."
Which doesn't, and doesn't?
The rest of the paragraph is provocative, but I'm struck by that last part -- by the fact that the party official didn't finish off with "which is also true." II'd like to believe that it's because the official knows "way too liberal" is nothing but the same load of crap Republicans throw out there every election cycle to fool the rubes.
The official also doesn't say that calling Obama a liberal polls well. If it doesn't now, there's a very good chance it will eventually, after the usual months and months of hearing Republicans using "liberal" as a slur and reporters dutifully recounting the use of it as a slur. But maybe, just maybe, this is the presidential year when it won't work, or maybe this is the candidate who's found the formula to beat the whammy. We'll see.
A few pages into New York magazine's cover story about John McCain, we get a brief peek at the truth, as an unnamed GOP operative talks about Barack Obama:
"Our strategy will look a fair amount like the one that Hillary is running against him now," a party official says. "It'll build on two things: first, that he's way too inexperienced to be commander-in-chief, which not only polls incredibly well but has the virtue of being true; and, second, that he's way too liberal."
Which doesn't, and doesn't?
The rest of the paragraph is provocative, but I'm struck by that last part -- by the fact that the party official didn't finish off with "which is also true." II'd like to believe that it's because the official knows "way too liberal" is nothing but the same load of crap Republicans throw out there every election cycle to fool the rubes.
The official also doesn't say that calling Obama a liberal polls well. If it doesn't now, there's a very good chance it will eventually, after the usual months and months of hearing Republicans using "liberal" as a slur and reporters dutifully recounting the use of it as a slur. But maybe, just maybe, this is the presidential year when it won't work, or maybe this is the candidate who's found the formula to beat the whammy. We'll see.
BREAKING NEWS! HEALTH CARE IS PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE FOR SOME PEOPLE!
This is actually a significant article, and I'm glad it's on page one of The New York Times today:
Health insurance companies are rapidly adopting a new pricing system for very expensive drugs, asking patients to pay hundreds and even thousands of dollars for prescriptions for medications that may save their lives or slow the progress of serious diseases.
With the new pricing system, insurers abandoned the traditional arrangement that has patients pay a fixed amount, like $10, $20 or $30 for a prescription, no matter what the drug's actual cost. Instead, they are charging patients a percentage of the cost of certain high-priced drugs, usually 20 to 33 percent, which can amount to thousands of dollars a month.
But I really don't like the sentence that follows:
The system means that the burden of expensive health care can now affect insured people, too.
Uh, "now"? What do you mean "now"? This has been a problem for a while.
The article, by Gina Kolata, tells us this started in the Medicare prescription drug program:
The system, often called Tier 4, began in earnest with Medicare drug plans and spread rapidly. It is now incorporated into 86 percent of those plans....
Now Tier 4 is also showing up in insurance that people buy on their own or acquire through employers....
But we were told in 2005 that half of personal bankruptcies were traceable to high medical bills -- and that the majority of those bankruptcy filers had medical insurance. (The Medicare prescription drug plan didn't begin until 2006.)
So this isn't the first huge hole in the insurance safety net -- it's just one more huge hole.
What are we talking about? An MS drug that now costs the patient $3,900 a year out of pocket, up from $240. A leukemia drug that now costs the patient $16,000 a year. A cancer drug that costs $3480 for what might be a 21-day supply.
This is with insurance -- or maybe I should say this is with "insurance."
This is actually a significant article, and I'm glad it's on page one of The New York Times today:
Health insurance companies are rapidly adopting a new pricing system for very expensive drugs, asking patients to pay hundreds and even thousands of dollars for prescriptions for medications that may save their lives or slow the progress of serious diseases.
With the new pricing system, insurers abandoned the traditional arrangement that has patients pay a fixed amount, like $10, $20 or $30 for a prescription, no matter what the drug's actual cost. Instead, they are charging patients a percentage of the cost of certain high-priced drugs, usually 20 to 33 percent, which can amount to thousands of dollars a month.
But I really don't like the sentence that follows:
The system means that the burden of expensive health care can now affect insured people, too.
Uh, "now"? What do you mean "now"? This has been a problem for a while.
The article, by Gina Kolata, tells us this started in the Medicare prescription drug program:
The system, often called Tier 4, began in earnest with Medicare drug plans and spread rapidly. It is now incorporated into 86 percent of those plans....
Now Tier 4 is also showing up in insurance that people buy on their own or acquire through employers....
But we were told in 2005 that half of personal bankruptcies were traceable to high medical bills -- and that the majority of those bankruptcy filers had medical insurance. (The Medicare prescription drug plan didn't begin until 2006.)
So this isn't the first huge hole in the insurance safety net -- it's just one more huge hole.
What are we talking about? An MS drug that now costs the patient $3,900 a year out of pocket, up from $240. A leukemia drug that now costs the patient $16,000 a year. A cancer drug that costs $3480 for what might be a 21-day supply.
This is with insurance -- or maybe I should say this is with "insurance."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)