Sure, we tweaked them here and here in the last 24 hours. But we were being chummy compared to HuffPo's David Roberts who positively lowers the boom: "Politico Reporter Erika Lovely Embarrasses Politico, Self, Profession of Journalism, Humanity."
Crooks and Liars has the video from the weekend seminar. Writes
I have to say, Halperin's line that this was "the most disgusting failure in our business since the Iraq war" is a real piece of chutzpah. Because when there was a chance for the media to do something about properly informing the public about the Iraq war, Halperin -- who had the reins of one of the three major network's news operations at the time -- did nothing. The media's coverage of the war, particularly during the critical runup period, was in fact a historic case of misfeasance that has had disastrous consequences for the nation. And Mark Halperin was a major player in that failure.
The headline reads, "Biden replacement creates blowback."
It's about how Delaware Gov. Ruth Ann Minner appointed Joe Biden's longtime aide Ted Kaufman to Biden's old Senate seat. Kaufman will be up for re-election in 2010 and it's widely thought that Biden son, Beau, Delaware's attorney general, who is currently serving in Iraq, will run in 2010.
In other words, there's a feeling that other Delaware pols were bypassed in order to keep the seat warm for Beau Biden. (It was a "ham-handed" move, Politico announced.) Hence the "blowback."
Juicy story, right? Well, except the fact that Politico can't find anybody to quote either on or off the record to back up the claim that the Kaufman pick created blowback within the Democratic Party.
Actually, strike that. Politico did quote a Republican who claimed the Kaufman pick sparked "bad blood" within the Democratic party.
And yes, a local, Delaware college prof was quoted saying, the Kaufman pick "is definitely going to be some blowback." [Emphasis added.] Note the verb tense, is going to. But has it? It's very possible that the Kaufman pick has. It's just that Politico can't find any proof, which is why, once again, the outlet is guilty of over-hyping its headlines.
It's often tough to tell with the conservative blog.
The latest mystery revolves around its utterly predictable attack on the NYT for being soft on Obama. Specifically, Powerline's Paul Mirengoff takes issues with this passage about Obama's new administration:
The choices are as revealing of the new president as they are of his appointees -- and suggest that, from its first days, an Obama White House will brim with big personalities and far more spirited debate than occurred among the largely like-minded advisers who populated President Bush's first term.
Not true, claims Power Line, because "Bush selected as his vice president a personality as big as all outdoors.'
And yes, we added the emphasis because Power Line claimed that Dick Cheney has a personality as big as all outdoors.
Looking back on the Democratic primary, the WaPo columnist is suddenly amazed at all the negative things that were said about Hillary Clinton in the press. Just amazed:
Remember when Clinton had no integrity, no character, when she lied about almost everything and could be trusted about almost nothing? ...That was a calumny, a libel and a ferocious mugging of memory itself. But it was believed.
But we're puzzled. Why is it hard to believe it, when back during the primaries Cohen himself was writing it. From his June 3rd column:
I loathe also what Hillary Clinton has done to herself. The incessant exaggerations, the cheap shots, the flights into hallucinatory history -- that sniper fire in Bosnia, for instance -- have turned her into a caricature of what her caricaturists long claimed she already was. In this campaign, Clinton has managed to come across as a hungry hack, a Janus looking both forward and backward and seeming to stand for nothing except winning. This, too, is sad.
CJR makes a smart point about Tuesday's column from Times financial writer Sorkin. It's the same Sorkin who last week mislead readers--and trashed GM auto workers--by claiming UAW employees enjoyed "gold-plated" benefits.
This week, Sorkin raises questions about Tim Geithner, Obama's choice for Treasury secretary. Actually, Sorkin allows anonymous Wall Street CEO's to raise questions about Geither. Writes CJR:
Sorkin is right to ask pointed questions about Geithner, but channeling Wall Street chiefs who were actually in charge of the businesses about why he didn't do better at keeping them from running off the cliff? Come on.
Huffington Post headline: Alan Colmes' Replacement: No One, Sean Hannity To Go It Alone
The Time mag writer seems to be reading way too much into the Obamas' decision to send their daughters to the Sidwell Friends school in Washington, D.C. Gibbs claims it revolves around the school's Quaker background and then quickly gets bogged down in Quaker dogma:
Unlike many Quaker schools, Sidwell is not attached to a particular Friends meeting, but many of its trustees are Quakers and the emphasis on open-minded pursuit of excellence and understanding is enforced by weekly Meetings for Worship.
The headline also suggests Time, which received no insight from the Obamas about this choice, can read minds: "Why Sasha and Malia Will Go to Sidewell Friends".
In truth, Time has no idea why the Obamas chose Sidwell Friends. And the magazine ought to probably just say so.