Here's the lead from John Harris and Glenn Thrush:
Hillary Rodham Clinton has a favorite expression for turning setback into opportunity: "Bloom where you're planted."
Her three-decade career on the public stage has produced countless examples of Clinton sprouting a flower in a pile of manure. Few of them are more vivid than this week's official announcement that she is the nominee to serve as secretary of state to Barack Obama.
How else would you read that?
This is quite amusing.
Word leaked this week that NBC was going to tap David Gregory for the coveted moderator position at Meet the Press. But now we learn that "the network has not finalized the deal," that "negotiations" are still on-going, and that the leak may be "potential impediment to concluding the deal." Gregory might even have a offer from GMA!
Is any of this unusual? Not really. The media elite sometimes negotiation their seven-figure deals through the press. But it sure is funny to watch a journalist at the center of this type of story considering that when word recently leaked a certain junior senator from New York was up for the SoS job, that negotiations were ongoing and that the leak may have been premature, the press howled about how difficult Hillary Clinton was being and how she always brought so much "drama" with her.
So what's Gregory's excuse?
For us, we hope Gregory just takes the job so we don't have to listen/hear/watch any more deeply serious Beltway reports about who's going to moderate the show. To us, based on the CW roster of reported finalists, it's just not that important.
Profiling sitcom actresses for entertainment magazine. (Can't say we're surprised.)
If we take up a (large) collection, do you think we can convince Graydon Carter to bring MoDo on staff at VF, which would open up a slot on the NYT Op-Ed page for somebody who, y'know, is actually interested in politics and American governance?
Newsflash: In his Barbara Walters interviews, featured in the upcoming "The 10 Most Fascinating People of 2008," the conservative talker who failed in stopping John McCain's GOP nomination and who failed in stopping Barack Obama's presidency (that's quite a year Rush), delivers this incredibly fascinating insight.
It's re: Hillary as SoS:
"You know the old phrase 'You keep your friends close and your enemies closer?'" Limbaugh asked. "He puts her over at secretary of state, how can she run for president in 2012? ... Then she's got to run against the incumbent? And be critical of him, the one who made her secretary of state?"
I mean, Rush is what, probably the 30th or 40th pundit to make that exact same point. Fascinating, indeed Babs.
Here's a recent swipe as the topic:
The war has claimed more than 4,200 American lives and killed a far greater, untold number of Iraqis, consumed huge reserves of money and resources and eroded the global stature of the United States, even among its closest allies.
The Media Bloundhound is not impressed:
How's that for a statistically rigorous accounting? With the exactitude of a third-grader's book report cribbed from a novel's dust jacket copy, the AP -- America's #1 wire news service -- blankets US news outlets with a quantification of Iraqi casualties that would've made Stalin proud. Seriously, it's 2008.
The Media Bloundhound isn't shocked though. The press has been absolutely allergic to the critical question of Iraqi deaths ever since the war began. And by the way, if the AP were actually interested, the floor to that Iraqi number probably begins around 250,000. Placed alongside the 4,200 figure, it sure raises lots of uncomfortable questions, doesn't it?
Writes Greg Sargent and TPM, and he's right.
He's referring to Bush's recent, semi-exit interview where he claimed the biggest regret of his presidency was the failure of the intel prior to the Iraq war. That bout of "candor" is what's made the headlines. But as Sargent points out, Bush's version of events is a whitewash of what actually happened, but the press isn't calling him out on his so-called candor:
Not a single one of their reports on the interview that we can find bothered to tell readers that there was plenty of good intel -- ignored by the Bush administration -- saying that Saddam wasn't the threat Bush was claiming he was. Nor did any of them bother mentioning that the weapons inspectors in Iraq were saying the same thing -- something that also went ignored.
Just when you thought the Village couldn't get any creepier, Emily Yoffe at Slate delivers:
Isn't it time for Hillary Clinton to get a quickie divorce from Bill (it can be done; it took about 20 minutes for Madonna to dissolve her marriage) before her confirmation hearings start?...And just think, if she divorced him, it would be the first time that their relationship made sense.
Whether the fact that Yoffe's item appeared on XX Factor, where "Slate women blog about politics," makes the whole thing even more disturbing remains open for debate.
The NYT scribes does her best to scrounge up news from yesterday's Hillary Clinton announcement. But all Stanley does is highlight the press' pathological refusal to deal with reality when covering the Clintons.
Here's Stanley, writing about the remarks Clinton made after Obama introduced her as his SoS pick:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's speech was no ordinary public-service pledge; for plenty of viewers, it was the moment when Mrs. Clinton finally conceded the election for real.
First off, my hunch is that most people assumed Clinton conceded the election "for real" when she, y'know, conceded the election in June. Or maybe when she endorsed Obama at the convention in August, or when she campaigned for him nationwide in October. But for The Village, it wasn't until December that Clinton conceded the election "for real."
Second, note the "plenty of viewers" language. We've noted this media trend before. Almost nobody in the real world shares the media's Clinton obsession, so in order to couch it as news, pundits simply pretend they're speaking for the masses, so Stanley goes with the "plenty of viewers."
Again it's just a hunch, but I think if you could find 100 people anywhere in the country who actually saw Clinton's SoS acceptance as her de facto election concession, then 95 of them probably work for elite media news orgs.
Remember how Drudge recently applied maximum spin to the news that his liberal counterpart, the Huffington Post, was getting a $15 million injection by suggesting the investment represented a "bailout" and that HuffPo was on "life support"?
Turns out, it's even worse for Drudge. The HuffPo, which doubled Drudge online traffic during the height of the campaign, actually is pocketing a $25 million investment, which will be used to further expand the online enterprise.
With the new funding can HuffPo triple Drudge's traffic? Let's watch and see.