The Associated Press reports:
President-elect Barack Obama thought he'd put the bowling jokes behind him.
On the golf course Monday, a woman waiting at the 18th green reminded Obama of his disastrous bowling during the presidential campaign. ...
"That was pretty good, right?" Obama said to cheers as he finished a round of golf near his $9 million rented vacation home near Honolulu.
The woman sitting on a nearby wall shouted, "Better than your bowling."
The woman's quip referred to Obama's embarrassing bowling outing in Pennsylvania, when he knocked down only 37 pins — with the assist during two frames from an 8-year-old. It was an effort to connect with working-class voters, yet he lost Pennsylvania's primary election to Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"Disastrous"? Really? It was a trip to a bowling alley, not a failed amphibious invasion of Cuba. "Disastrous" seems a bit overheated.
And notwithstanding the AP's certainty that Obama's "disastrous" bowling experience destroyed his ability to "connect with working-class voters," the man did, um, win the presidency. Seems like he must have connected with at least a handful of working-class voters along the way. Even some Pennsylvanians, who managed to look past Obama's bowling ability and give him a comfortable general-election win.
Doing its best to prop up the beyond soggy and now practically underwater Blago/Obama "scandal," The Note works feverishly to convince fellow journalists (news consumers are not the target audience here) that they didn't make fools of themselves hyping the non-story for weeks. That the released report showing Obama's team did nothing wrong simply vindicates the media's hyperventilating coverage.
The two key take-aways from The Note's perspective are that the press should feel good about its misleading work, and that the Obama team could have avoided the whole mess if it had simply come clean. And oh yeah, this manufactured story's not over! It's going to "linger." (Sorta like Whitewater?)
In other words, The Note's Rick Klein knowingly concocts fiction and refuses to come clean about the Village's utterly shameful Blago coverage.
And we don't use the word "concocts" lightly. Read this passage [emphasis added]:
To the extent that there's news in the report, it exists in part because Obama and company worked so hard before to convince the public that this president-elect would never be involved in something as parochial and tawdry as playing a role in choosing the next junior senator from Illinois.
Anyone see the irony? Klein claims Obama's message to voters was that he'd never be involved in something like Blago's dirty scheme and that's why this story remains "news." But guess what? Obama isn't involved in Blago's dirty scheme, yet the press claims this is news.
As we've noted before, when it wants to, the press can tell any story it wants.
It's really the right-wing bloggers lone claim to fame in the last four-plus years; they got Dan Rather fired. Liberal bloggers just got a president elected and helped fortified gains in Congress. Right-wing bloggers four years ago got an anchor fired.
We'll take the former, but that's just us.
Now, as Rather's civil case moves through the courts and we learn more and more details about the case, suddenly the right-wing bloggers' claim to fame doesn't look all that dazzling. Their response? Blame the media (a stretch, we know) and claim the press is trying to rewrite history.
LGF is huffing and puffing about this week's NPR story. Specifically, LGF is furious NPR reported that the disputed documents at the center of Memogate have never been proven to be fakes. Liars! shrieks LGF.
Of course, this is one of the great ironies of Memogate: the "independent" panel that investigated the media scandal and which was headed by a longtime Bush family friend, refused to verify that the CBS documents were forgeries. In fact, the lead panel attorney claimed the right-wing bloggers were wrong about the much-heralded document detective work.
Four years later Dan Rather is stating that point often, and that point will likely be made many, many times if and when his civil suit goes to trial, and it's driving the right-wing bloggers bonkers. Which means LGF is back rambling on about fonts and typewriters again.
Guys, it's been four years. Find a new schtick.
From his live chat at WaPo [emphasis added]:
It is amusing, especially since as you point out, Obama himself is opposed to gay marriage. So it's a little much to hyperventilate over Rick Warren. To answer your question: The left hates traditional Christianity. That's the real complaint.
A simple question for WaPo, does Carlson actually get paid to participate in these live chats? Because if somebody like Tucker gets paid to write the following (even for a vacuous WaPo live chat), then we begin to understand why media companies are facing financial woes:
Somebody needs to write a book about why the radical left is so much more interesting and open-minded than your garden variety lifestyle liberal. Whenever I meet a lefty who smokes, or who buy groceries at Safeway rather than Whole Foods, I know we're going to get along.
Whatever you say Tucker.
To trumpet the release of the Obama report regarding Blago contacts, CNN went into hyperventilating mode.
The on-screen graphic [emphasis added]: "Breaking News: Team Obama Reveals Secret Report".
Simple question for CNN, what's secret about the report?
NPR reports on Dan Rather's ongoing court battle with CBS over Memogate. As CF recently detailed, Rather's lawsuit has shed new light on just how far CBS went to make sure its "independent" panel investigating the matter made conservative critics happy; to make sure its principals would "mollify" the right. (CBS considered including Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh on the "independent" panel.) In other words, CBS kowtowed.
NPR asked Andrew Heyward, who was president of CBS News at the time, about the network's desire in 2004 to skew its investigation:
"This was my view of what we needed to do to cauterize the wounds and have a credible result across a broad spectrum, including our harshest critics," Heyward says. "I would do the same thing today."
Walter Robinson, the Boston Globe reporter who first broke the Bush National Guard story in 2000, remains dumbstruck by the CBS kowtowing. He tells NPR:
"It's inexcusable that CBS would attempt to rig the panel...The idea that a serious news network would consider Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh to pass some sort of fair-minded judgment on something — it's mind-boggling."
Somebody should write a book about the press coverage Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been able to manufacture for herself over the last eight years. It's really quite amazing how she managed to sail through the demolition derby that was the Bush administration--and have her fingerprints all over some of its biggest failings--and come out smelling like a rose inside press rooms.
Not only has she managed to escape unscathed from the press, the Beltway press actually adores her and has remained absolutely committed (especially the TV talking heads) to never asking her an uncomfortable question and never, ever asking a pointed follow-up. As we mentioned recently, it's literally become media game: The TV hosts ask innocuous questions to Rice about Iraq. She responds with misleading information knowing full well that her host is never going to call her on it. And then the two dance onto another topic.
So it makes perfect sense that MTP's new hosts David Gregory broke in his chair over the weekend with a "pillow soft" interview with Rice, as Crooks and Liars put it. The display (see it here) really had nothing to do with journalism and everything to do with Gregory subscribing to Beltway social customs.
The daily this week published a full-throated anti-union opinion piece (screed?) that attacks Labor Secretary nominee, Congresswoman Hilda Solis. It was written by Bret Jacobson. Who's he? Here's how the LA Times describes Jacobson at the bottom of his op-ed:
Bret Jacobson is founder and president of Maverick Strategies LLC, a research and communications firm serving business and free-market think tanks.
Sounds rather innocuous, right? Not quite. Blogger Matt Browner Hamlin fills in the blanks. Bottom line:
The most important piece of Jacobson's biography - his professional connection to one of the biggest anti-union groups in America - is left out of a column that specifically pushes [an anti-union] agenda.
Seems if the Times wants to allow Big Business surrogates to denigrate unions and their workers in the pages of the daily, than the Times ought to at least be upfront about who's doing it.