The media really have nothing to do or are completely bored so they are manufacturing a scandal between Obama and Blags and Fitzgerald.

Obama has said that Obama should not talk about the case until next week.

"In the course of those discussions, the US Attorney's office requested the public release of the Transition review be deferred until the week of December 22, in order not to impede their investigation of the governor. The Transition has agreed to this revised timetable for release."

Obama complies with the prosecutor and suddenly the media gets their freak on. Why won't he release the information NOW?

Here's a memo to the press. STFU... OK, I said that because I'm a dirty hippie blogger and I'm told to STFU all the time... As Country Fair explains, Obama is Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

And that's the entire point of Weisman's article - that Obama could have blown off Fitzgerald's request. Yet nowhere does Weisman acknowledge the obvious reality that if Obama did so, the media - probably including Weisman himself - and the Republicans would freak out, accusing him of obstruction. That makes it disingenuous at best to suggest that Obama is to blame for the delay in releasing information about contacts between Obama staff and Blago...

The Villagers are restless and need a scandal fix. Please let Obama be on those tapes... I don't blame them, with all the corruption that went on under the Bush administration that they hardly could find any time to report on. And of course since they were lapdogs for Bush and a Democrat won, now it's time for them to get busy with Teh Journamilism.

They're mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore.

The interesting things about this is that NBC bureau chief Mark Whittaker is throwing down the gauntlet to Obama and saying that the press feels it has something to prove after being accused of being Bush lapdogs. And his minion Murray is dutifully carrying the boss's water.

Eight years of relentless harassment and character assassination, during which time the village media felt that Clinton and then Gore were "getting away with too much" because none of the endless GOP generated scandals ever came to anything, and so they had to take him down. Then, in order to "prove" they weren't just childish scandal mongers after destroying Al Gore, they went the other way and laid on their backs and let Bush walk all over them as he oversaw the destruction of the country.

Now, in order to once again "prove" they aren't lapdogs, they are going to pick up right where they left off eight years ago, asking endless questions about inconsequential nonsense and breathlessly speculating about what the inconsequential nonsense might mean until a whole lot of people think there must be something to it or these people wouldn't be talking about it so much.

Sorry, he's clean from this mess, but that hasn't stopped the chattering class from attacking Obama on almost every show. You can bet that when he does release the information, that will not be good enough. I'm sure one of them will latch onto a phrase or an odd wording in a sentence and blow it up as big as they can.

I can't wait for the holidays to get here. We all need a break and I might actually take some time off.

Download | play

Lou Dobbs did a complete hit piece on Obama, ACORN and the SEIU yesterday and used Rick Berman's right-wing front group, which poses (unconvincingly) as a non-partisan organization to do it. Shame on you, Lou.

Right-wingers are freaked out that after conservatives got trounced in the 2008 election, Americans might want to join unions, so they are spending megabucks to smear them, including SEIU. UnionFacts.org ran this smear ad in the NY Times that Dobbs, who loves to descrtibe himself as a "populist," used in the above segment.

Lou called them a "union watchdog group":

Dobbs: There are new questions tonight about possible ties between President-elect Obama's campaign and Governor Blagojevich's office. A union watchdog group says Blagojevich's largest contributor, the Service Employees International Union, also donated millions of dollars to the Obama campaign. Bill Tucker has our report.

So Dobbs is doing what almost every other media outlet is doing: Trying to smear Obama with Blags, and using idiotic examples to do it.

Dobbs willingly used the Center for Union Facts -- which is another word for "smear" -- to make these farcical claims. CNN should be ashamed of itself.

TUCKER: Now Employee Free Choice Act is strongly opposed by a number of groups including the Union Facts Organization. Obama and the Democratic leadership, Lou, have made it very clear that they publicly support the Employee Free Choice Act.

DOBBS: A number of people have said you know they will support the Free Choice Act if the United States Congress starts doing all of its caucusing in public. It's -- this is a very difficult issue here.

Tucker fails to name any groups that oppose EFCA except a wingnut front group that he fails to identify. Have you noticed how CNN has changed their graphics? They could have easily given viewers some facts about the group. And what does Congress caucusing in public view have to do with unionizing?

If you've never heard of the "Center for Union Facts," here's a little info:

The Center is the latest public relations campaign and front group devised by “notorious D.C. lobbyist”1 and veteran spin doctor Richard “Rick” Berman with his firm, Berman and Company.

The Center for Union Facts is a front group focused on damaging the public image of unions, depressing workers’ rights, pushing legislation that would make it more difficult for workers to join unions, and furthering an anti-union business climate.

Berman earned his status as one of The Hill’s top lobbyists, along with Jack Abramoff,2 by working on behalf of unpopular clients like the tobacco, alcohol, and fast food industries. Berman’s campaigns have attempted to relax drunk driving laws, argue obesity is not a public health issue, prevent increases in the federal or state minimum wage, and attack advocacy groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

They were created in 2006 and ran full page ads in the NY Times and the Washington Post attacking unions.

The group, the Center for Union Facts, ran full-page advertisements in national newspapers yesterday and started a Web site, UnionFacts.com, asserting that many unions are corrupt and have hurt airlines, steel makers and automakers.

{snip}
The Center for Union Facts shot onto the public stage yesterday by running full-page ads in The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.

And guess what the creation of the bogus "UnionFacts" was for? I'll give you a hint...It's two words...."Card Check" That's right. the right wing is terrified that American workers might want to join a union.

Dobbs mimics the above ad that Union Facts bought in the NY Times which tries to link Obama to disgraced Illinois Gov Blagojevich by saying that since the SEIU gave campaign contributions to both they are all guilty of something. Typical Republican branding.In Dobbs mind these campaign donations somehow link Obama and SEIU to Blagojevich's possible corruption by the usual Republican mantra. Guilt by Association. Give me a freaking break. I know the media is looking for anything they can use to smear Obama with on Blags, but get real... Nowhere in this segment does Dobbs tell his audience anything about this front group for CEO's and misleads the audience completely.

It's bad enough that Dobbs doesn't even know what Employee Free Choice Act is, but to then use a wingnut front group to attack it means either a couple of things. He knows they are a CEO-backed front group. He is lying to his audience or he is completely ignorant of the entire story. Which then begs the question: Why the heck would he run such garbage knowingly? Lou, the "independent populist," either got willingly played for a fool by corporate shills, or hates union workers, or both. You tell me.

I'd debate Lou anytime if he'd like on this topic. What do you say, Lou?

More about Berman here.

Full transcript via CNN below the fold:

Continue reading »

A new report produced by the government spends over 500 pages telling us what we witnessed with our own eyes:

An unpublished 513-page federal history of the American-led reconstruction of Iraq depicts an effort crippled before the invasion by Pentagon planners who were hostile to the idea of rebuilding a foreign country, and then molded into a $100 billion failure by bureaucratic turf wars, spiraling violence and ignorance of the basic elements of Iraqi society and infrastructure.

The history, the first official account of its kind, is circulating in draft form here and in Washington among a tight circle of technical reviewers, policy experts and senior officials. It also concludes that when the reconstruction began to lag — particularly in the critical area of rebuilding the Iraqi police and army — the Pentagon simply put out inflated measures of progress to cover up the failures. In one passage, for example, former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is quoted as saying that in the months after the 2003 invasion, the Defense Department “kept inventing numbers of Iraqi security forces — the number would jump 20,000 a week! ‘We now have 80,000, we now have 100,000, we now have 120,000.’...read on....

Rummsfeld has a nice quote too on the second page saying:

The history records how Mr. Garner presented Mr. Rumsfeld with several rebuilding plans, including one that would include projects across Iraq. “What do you think that’ll cost?” Mr. Rumsfeld asked of the more expansive plan.

“I think it’s going to cost billions of dollars,” Mr. Garner said. “My friend,” Mr. Rumsfeld replied, “if you think we’re going to spend a billion dollars of our money over there, you are sadly mistaken.”

It's good to get the truth out of the administration, but wow....The depths these lying liars sunk to over their pet project named "Mission Accomplished", I mean the Iraq War.

Howie wrote a piece based on a Congress Daily article called:

Who Should Take Over House Ways And Means? Let's Make Sure We Poll All GOP Interests And Make Sure It's Not Some Dirty Damn Liberal

The media makes sure that liberals are scrutinized for any position in government for the sake of the country, but Conservatives get a free pass, but that article was noteworthy for another reason. The dreaded over use of anonymous sources.

We see anonymous sources being used in articles all the time, and news reporting probably wouldn't be possible without them. I use sources all the time when I break some stories and you trust me when I do it, but when an article uses nine anonymous---gossipy-lobbyist---type sources to do a hit job on Pete Stark in the Congress Daily, then I think someone from that publication should have to explain themselves.

Matt Stoller:

And there we go. 'Journalist' Peter Cohn puts together a wholly conventional ideological hit job on Democrat Pete Stark using nine anonymous quotes or statements attributed to 'sources'.  Not one single person will go on the record to discuss why the seniority system shouldn't work in the case of Stark, not one policy idea is considered in the article vis-a-vis Stark or anyone else's record, and the reader learns nothing about the tax writing committee from it other than nine anonymous sources in Congress think something.  Apparently, the amorphous business community will 'go nuclear', whatever that means, Stark is gaffe-prone, but neither the public, policy, or the shift leftward in Congress as evidenced by Waxman's recent committee victory in the Energy and Commerce tussle are even referenced...read on 

Please email Peter Cohn and ask him why he went completely overboard on the use of anonymous sources.

pcohn@nationaljournal.com

Clark Hoyt, the NY Times public editor wrote an article about this very problem:

Culling the Anonymous Sources

Continue reading »

Please raise your hands. How many people thought Saxby Chambliss would win the runoff election?

...

[crickets chirp noisily]

...

That's what I thought. It was almost a miracle that Jim Martin even had a shot at the Georgia seat.

And before the election, everyone was saying Democrats would be lucky to win seven Senate seats. I did a quick Google search and came up with this. The right wing Human Events wrote this in June:

Dean told a Monitor breakfast on Wednesday, June 11, that he expected “we’ll pick up from 5-to-7 seats” in the Senate. At a Monitor lunch the next day, Nevada Sen. Ensign told reporters that for his party to lose no more than three seats this fall “would be a terrific night for us. I don’t want to slip below the four-seat loss.”

And this:

Political analysts widely predict major gains for the Democrats in the Senate and House of Representatives today.

But few think the Democrats will win the nine extra Senate positions they need to have a filibuster-proof "supermajority" in that branch of Congress.

I would have loved to get to the magic number of 60, but if Franken prevails that will give the the Democratic Party 59.

And this:

In election forecast model developed by a political scientist 99 days before the 2008 elections and before the recent Wall Street crisis predicts significant Democratic gains in the 2008 congressional elections--including 11 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 3 seats in the U.S. Senate...read on

So where does David Gergen get off on spreading this nonsense (via Todd Beeton)?

On AC360 earlier David Gergen declared:

I think this actually puts a lot more pressure on Barack Obama to govern much more from the center and not from the left. He is going to need Republicans now, he is going to need a bipartisan approach...

Right! A 41-vote Senate minority should by all means have Barack Obama shaking in his boots. I wonder if Gergen said something similar about Republicans on Nov. 4th, perhaps something like...

I think the fact that Barack Obama won 53% of the vote tonight and that Democrats will have won at least 7 more seats in the Senate and 20 more seats in the House puts a lot more pressure on Republicans to govern much more from the center and not from the right.

Oh, he didn't? Ya don't say...

Gergen's refusal to put the burden on the Republicans to be cooperative and "centrist" rather than the Democrats is really a symptom of the persistent Beltway "center-right nation" conventional wisdom, which always puts the burden on Democrats to be the centrist ones since the Republican Party, so goes the logic, is where the people already are. Was there any greater evidence that the Democratic Party is where the people are than the results on November 4th?

You can never trust the Beltway weenies. Sure, they can come with some good stuff occasionally and add some honest analysis, but when push comes to shove they will almost always side with Conservatives. It's up to all of us to correct the record, even if Obama persists with his bipartisan narrative.

Digby explains:

This is why people like me are chafing at all the bipartisan chatter, which does nothing to change that perception. Indeed, it feeds into it.

And until that default rightist mentality is changed, nothing changes over the long term. Sure, the country will hire Democrats to come in and clean up conservative messes from time to time, but they won't ever realize that the party that is identified as the center-left is actually the majority unless someone claims it. The result will be that when the smoke has cleared the country will reflexively want to go back to "normal" by electing Republicans, the true representatives of our naturally center-right country.

The Fairness Doctrine seems to strike fear into the hearts of the sicko radio jocks that pollute our airwaves. The right wing talkie-kabobs made that a major talking point during the general election. Here's a piece from Murdoch's rag:

SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate

I often post the disgusting rants of people like Limbaugh and Hannity because it is truly offensive and destructive stuff, but there's a whole cabal of minor league right wing talking heads that spew the same garbage on a much smaller scale that still penetrates into many regional pockets of our nation.

Like their better-known counterparts, these syndicated and regional radio hosts have played active roles this election season in promoting falsehoods and smears in an all-out effort to foment hate and distrust among their listeners for President-elect Barack Obama. 

While the hosts vary in the degree of vitriol they spew and in their ratio of rebuttable falsehoods to unbridled smears, Media Matters for America and Colorado Media Matters have identified common themes that many, if not all, have promoted over the past year. 

Here are a few examples from Country Fair, but go and check out their list.

Radio hosts echo Drudge's distortion of Obama's 2001 WBEZ interview

Clear Channel hosts likened African outfit worn by Obama to "the kind of garb you often see Osama bin Laden in" and to "Somali warlord garb"

Cunningham alleged that "Obama wants to gas the Jews"

In the days before the election, media figures have repeatedly compared Obama to Hitler

Newman: "[T]here will be an invasion of Muslim terrorists" if Obama becomes president

It isn't something Santa would approve of. And I'm sure they will all be good soldiers, fighting the scary "War on Christmas."
You can also look through our tag system under "smears" and find a host of others. When you look at them all together, it really is like a mutating virus...

A new talking point coming from the Villagers today is that Obama's new team looks just like a McCain cabinet, God forbid. I surely doubt Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder or Samantha Power would have been named to a McCain team. It wasn't a surprise that Obama kept on Gates for the time being since we are in the middle of two wars and Gen. Jones has been a big Obama supporter so what the heck are they talking about?

There is a lot of work ahead as Obama assumes the presidency and the media really wants us to fight amongst ourselves. That is quite evident.

Joe Jackson, "Sunday Papers," from 1979.

Pretty spare offerings this Sunday. The Villagers' obsessive use of movement conservatives seems to be abating somewhat, but you'll notice once again that very few bona fide liberals are few and far between still:

ABC's "This Week" - Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Authors round table.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - First lady Laura Bush; Said Jawad, Afghanistan's ambassador to the U.S.; Ted Turner, CNN founder and author of a new memoir.

CNN's "Late Edition" - Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa.; Sajjan Gohel, director of international security, Asia-Pacific Foundation; Ron Gettelfinger, president of United Auto Workers; Gene Sperling, former Clinton administration economic adviser; Maj. Gen. Mark Hertling, the commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq.

CNN's "GPS with Fareed Zakaria" - This week, Fareed speaks to world experts about foreign policy challenges facing Barack Obama.

"Fox News Sunday" - Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.

"The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: David Ignatius, Ceci Connolly, Katty Kay, Mark Whitaker. Topics: Will the right and left give Obama a honeymoon? How will Islamic extremists view Obama's presidency?

What's catching your eye this morning?

Norah Jones - Don't Miss You At All

It's Sunday, and you know what that means? Another sanctimonious talking head appearance by Holy Joe Lieberman on Meet the Press. How can we miss him if he won't ever go away? That man has one serious love of the spotlight. In all seriousness, given that the President-elect Obama and Democrats in the Senate want to rise above any and all trespasses by Lieberman, it seems to me that the best way for him to truly be punished is to simply ignore him. He loves being the center of attention so much that I'm sure it would just kill him to have no one pay attention to him. Other than that, it looks like the economy will be topic one with lots of Republicans to assert that they have the solution, or to accuse Obama that he doesn't. Considering their own track record, I wish that just once some host would ask them why they should ever be trusted. And isn't it funny how the media has already written off all Bush administration figures already?

ABC's "This Week" - David Axelrod, senior adviser to President-elect Barack Obama; Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Richard Shelby, R-Ala.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; Austan Goolsbee, economic adviser to Obama.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Former Secretary of State James Baker; former Commerce Secretary William Daley; Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.

CNN's "Late Edition" - Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas; Gov. Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich.; former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.; Forbes Inc. CEO Steve Forbes; former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - This week on GPS, an exclusive interview with Former Vice President Al Gore. Also, Fareed and an all-star panel of guests -- Tom Friedman, Niall Ferguson and Anne-Marie Slaughter -- discuss the US economic crisis.

"Fox News Sunday" - Reps. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and John Boehner, R-Ohio; Axelrod.

"The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Bob Woodward, Gloria Borger, Katty Kay, David Gregory. Topics: How will Obama specifically represent change from Bush? Is Hillary a smart choice for Secretary of State? Meter Questions: Will Hillary be more of an Obama rival in the Senate instead of State? YES: 10 NO: 2; Will the GOP pick a young rising star instead of an older "heir apparent" in 2012? YES: 12 No: 0

So what's catching your eye this morning?

What is Michael Hirsh drinking?

Eric Boehlert:

Newsweek blames the bloggers

Writes Michael Hirsh:

For the last few days, the blogosphere has been ablaze with speculation about the kind of damage Hillary Clinton could do to the Obama presidency if she becomes secretary of state.

Of course, for the last few days there's been comparatively little speculation within the blogosphere about what kind of "damage" Hillary Clinton could to the Obama presidency. It's been the mainstream media that's played up the "damage" angle and been childishly obsessed with pushing the "soap opera" angle of the story.

For the most part, lib bloggers have been treating the story seriously, like adults. We're still waiting for the Beltway pundits to catch up.

We've been writing much more about Lieberman if he actually bothered to read more than one blog. And if Hirsh wants to talk about damage being done, how about he take a good hard look at what the traditional media has done to our country?

As noted, we have no particular view on Hillary Clinton as Sec of State. But we do have a reaction to the pundit corps’ renewed Clinton/Gore-loathing: Things have reached the point where these sad life-forms are “objectively anti-American.” The nation is in a set of major messes; a new president is trying to pick the people he thinks will serve him best in a difficult time. But so what? Even in such a perilous time, the loonier members of the Dowd-Matthews axis can’t quit their Clinton-loathing. Nothing will keep them from this vast pleasure, the one pleasure of their sad lives.

It’s almost like they loathe the country itself. In the past, they’ve done astounding harm to that country through their aggressive Clinton/Gore-trashing -- especially when they worked so hard to put George Bush where he is. But even now, they refuse to abandon their childish games. Nothing will ever make them stop. They care about little else.

They did their very best to elect George Bush in 2000 and it took a stolen election to get it done. But then again, this is the traditional media we're talking about.

What a nice headline from FOX.

I wonder if they got a memo from Newt Gingrich?

GINGRICH: Look, I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact.

Sheppard Smith has been full of surprises lately. First he smacks down wingnut extraordinaire Joe the Plumber and then he smacks down Nick DiPaolo.

DiPaolo:...the MSM being so in the tank for Obama...

Smith: Oh, please. That's preposterous. (Why?)
The MSM reflected what was happening in this nation. It did not drive it. The blogs didn't drive this movement, the media didn't drive this movement. Barack Obama did not lose this election. It was his to lose. It was not John McCain's to win. The Republicans had no shot unless the Democrats gave it to them and they didn't and to blame the media is a cop out and ridiculous....

DiPaolo The MSM has been liberal since its inception. It's years and years of pounding...

Smith: How did George Bush win twice?

DiPaolo: I don't know. Karl Rove is a genius.

We can debate some of the merits of Smith's argument, but his central point about media bias in this election is correct. And Karl Rove embodies everything that is wrong with American politics.

Thanks for the memories, but you were all completely "Irrelevant" during the historic victory that Barack Obama achieved during 2008 Presidential election. All your smears failed to change the course of history.

"Irrelevant"

"Irrelevant"

"Irrelevant"

"Irrelevant"

"Irrelevant"

"Irrelevant"

"Irrelevant"

"Irrelevant"

(The list keeps growing. More below the fold.)

Continue reading »

CNN's The Situation Room released some great new battleground state poll results which included NV, VA, OH, NC and WV. No mention of FL, CO or PA. It's great that Obama has a 4 pt. lead in NC at this time, but this election is not going to turn on NC or WV.
OH, FL, VA, PA are the big ones...What is CNN doing? Here's some of the latest battle ground polling.

And here....

The polls are looking pretty good right now, but until the votes are counted I'm fighting all the way.

Joe Sudbay discusses the flawed new AP poll.

McCain actually uses Joe in an ad...Another typical right wing trick late in the game. Joe would actually benefit mightily if Obama wins, but that doesn't matter to "Joe."

The MSM is finally doing a little research on another mistake by Rick Davis. Bloomberg writes a very detailed article and says:

Analysts said Wurzelbacher's circumstances have muddled McCain's effort to profit politically from the tax issue, making it unlikely ``Joe the plumber'' will have any more long-term benefit for his campaign than did the selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.

snip

Before living in Ohio, Wurzelbacher was a resident of Mesa, Arizona, in McCain's home state, according to property records.

McCain gave Wurzelbacher an apology yesterday for throwing him into the spotlight.

Since the media does read our blogs they are slowly reporting that Joe ain't all that he was cracked up to be by McCain. They do have the resources to dig very deep. And he doesn't even have a Plumber's license.

Joe the Plumber's story sprang a few leaks Thursday. Turns out that the man who was held up by John McCain as the typical, hard-working American taxpayer isn't really a licensed plumber. And court documents show he owes nearly $1,200 in back taxes.

"Joe," whose name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, was cited repeatedly in Wednesday night's final presidential debate by McCain for questioning Barack Obama's tax policy.

Continue reading »