One word: Spain. Daily Kos has the details at how the blogs helped drive that news story.
That would be Andrew Malcolm who, as CF has pointed out, seems to see his job as a Times blogger to pass along GOP spin in the guise of news. Malcolm's latest GOP duties include beating the extremely dead horse about how (ugh, it bores us to even type this up) the Clintons aren't doing enough to elect Obama.
Malcolm, in full Democratic mocking mode, dissects Bill Clinton's recent appearance on CNBC and declares, after much deep analysis using his special decoder, that Clinton did not utter the correct phrases in pointing out again and again how and why Obama will win the election.
A couple of particular Malcolm lowlights:
-"The Democratic ex-president made the wannabe Democratic president come up to his Harlem office last week to have lunch, all friendly-like."
See, Clinton didn't recently invite Obama to lunch, he made Obama come to lunch. Also, what's up with Malcolm referring to Obama as "the wannabe"? Does Malcolm often refer to McCain as the "wannabe Republican president"? Pretty flippant, condescending language by Malcolm, if you ask us.
-"And the ex-president tore himself away from still preparing to go out and campaign for the kid long enough to go on CNBC because.... several hundred people a day watch that channel and it's a good opportunity to not yet be out on the road campaigning."
Ha-ha! It was a big joke that Clinton recently appeared on CNBC. According to Malcolm Clinton should have been out campaigning for Obama, instead of appearing on CNBC this week, which nobody watches.
Question: Does Malcolm not live in America? Is he not aware of the financial meltdown taking place and that CNBC this week is posting among its highest ratings ever?
Honestly, this stuff is just too dumb for words and highlights what happens when mainstream news org create political blogs and allow staffers to print nonsense that would never make it into print.
In the ratings. Her show has been on two weeks and she's already done what Beck hasn't been able to accomplish in two years--have a hit TV show.
Prior to killer Hurricane Ike making land fall and devastating southeast Texas, O'Reilly told is radio audience the media warnings about the storm was just "hype." Will O'Reilly now apologize? See Steve Young.
Yes, there's stuff we actually like. From the Wall Street Journal, this incisive and descriptive paragraph from a prize-winning caliber article describing the financial meltdown:
The U.S. financial system resembles a patient in intensive care. The body is trying to fight off a disease that is spreading, and as it does so, the body convulses, settles for a time and then convulses again. The illness seems to be overwhelming the self-healing tendencies of markets. The doctors in charge are resorting to ever-more invasive treatment, and are now experimenting with remedies that have never before been applied. Fed Chairman Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, walking into a hastily arranged meeting with congressional leaders Tuesday night to brief them on the government's unprecedented rescue of AIG, looked like exhausted surgeons delivering grim news to the family.
Anchor Erin Burnett questioning the patriotism of short sellers? Analyst Jim Cramer wondering if terrorists are behind the financial madness that continues to unfold on Wall Street?
CJR thinks it's time for the CNBC team to regroup.
The good news is your new show is a ratings smash; the highest rated-program on MSNBC right now.
The bad news is Phil Donahue had the top-rated program on MSNBC when they fired him right before the Iraq war.
For some reason, the television industry uses different standards to judge the success and failure of liberal hosts.
This is rather unsightly, and not to mention media incestuous. It comes courtesy of Michael Crowley at The New Republic and it only highlights the media's need to end their utter fascination with picking apart Clinton phrases, or here, Clinton-related phrases. There's an historic campaign unfolding, why don't reporters and pundits just cover that?
The topic was Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Crowley noted that the New York Times' Clinton-ologist Patrick Healy had posted this online during a rather goofy IM exchange published in NY mag:
You know what I keep hearing privately from advisers to Hillary? They say, "Why is it our job to blunt Palin's impact? Hillary is not on the ticket. Obama didn't choose her." I don't think it's so much about resentment, it's an honest assessment that Hillary can only do so much in this regard. (And she doesn't want to be blamed if this vote doesn't go Obama's way.)
Note the comments were not sourced and were made privately. Nonetheless, Crowley didn't like the gist and announced, "This really doesn't strike me as a line that Hillary's people should be promoting."
Question: How are Hillary's people "promoting" it if they're discussing it privately? I'm pretty sure her aides are press savvy enough that if their intention was to actually promote that meme, they could do that in the press. To date, they specifically have not. (i.e. If Healy had real sources and real quotes from Clinton aides pushing that theme, he would have published it in the NYTimes.)
Yet Crowley claims they are "promoting" it, based on a second-hand, unsourced IM exchange.