In defense of the New Yorker Cover:
Yes, it's provocative, arguably in poor taste, and possibly to likely detrimental to the Obama campaign. But in some ways, I kind of like the New Yorker Cover. Here's why:
I saw this cover and my knee jerk reaction, which I emailed to someone was, "this seems pretty twisted, almost hard to believe, but I'm not totally sure yet. Whaddya think?"
Then I caught the diary breaking it on here, with some 2000 plus comments, most of them, understandably, outraged.
One comment in particular was compelling. It was a pretty strong, well composed letter to the New Yorker, by someone who was African American (as Obama is, half -- I refuse to go with this societal crap that if one is half black half white one is more "black" than white. It's inane, and perpetuates racism in a major way) -- who clearly has a view on the subject that I can not possibly fully fathom, as to how he/she felt its underlying racism.
Newly hired Executive Editor of the Washington Post Marcus Brauchli -- becoming just the third Executive Editor there since 1968 -- made two statements that ought to give any one pause.
The first statement was this:
What was important..was the [Wall Street] Journal, not me -- that the editorial integrity be preserved, not that my job be preserved. . . . Fighting for my job would have been mostly selfish and undermined the fight to maintain quality journalism.
The statement makes little sense out of context, and perhaps even less sense in context.
Republican Presidential Nominee John McCain has been rapidly establishing a rampant pattern of inconsistency and outright contradictions, yet has essentially been receiving a free ride on it. I wrote about this Sunday.
Two days later, the Washinton Post's allegedly liberal columnist, Richard Cohen, wrote an editorial that provided an implicit -- and quite extraordinary -- rationale for this lopsided media focus, which lopsided focus he himself then exhibits in spades. Nor is this the first time Cohen has said something outrageous about a presidential election. And after the last time he did it -- contributing to the excessively negative and false stereotpying of Al Gore -- he spent several subsequent columns, years later, blaming others.
On Sunday I wrote about some of Presidential Candidate John McCain's more extreme and recent flip flops, and how the media practically gives McCain a free ride. Worse, in 2004 flip flopping was considered a seminal topic, and constantly talked about; when a) it was Kerry who was constantly accused of being a flip flopper, and even though b) most of these accusations were patently false (gay marriage, No Child Left Behind) or extremely misleading (Iraq, USA Patriot Act). Yet here is McCain, establishing a rather profound pattern of inconsistency and outright contradictions, and it is barely being covered.
David Broder, today, in the Washington Post:
McCain benefits from a long-established reputation as a man who says what he believes. His shifts in position that have occurred in this campaign seem not to have damaged that aura.
Hmmm. I wonder why. Could it have anything to do with the way that the media covers McCain, as well as the way they "cover" his almost constant flip flops and statements of belief that directly contradict his earlier statements of belief?
An Associated Press article, published on Friday, notes that all within a span of roughly two weeks, on Fox: "Outraged liberals: Stop picking on Obama's baby mama" came on the screen during a Michelle Malkin interview, Fox anchor E.D. Hill apologized for referring to an affectionate onstage fist bump shared by the couple as a "terrorist fist jab," and Fox contributor Liz Trotta said she was sorry for joking about an Obama assassination.
But what about the widespread AP article itself?
Subtitled: Do Democrats Help to Accomodate This?
We'll take a look at two articles. The first is an older article by EJ Dionne, about whom, on a separate matter regarding media bias, I wrote Thursdy. The second is by a Washington Post reporter, published yesterday.
Well after John McCain had become the presumptive Republican nominee for President, Liberal commentator and apparent Liberal favorite EJ Dionne began a typical Washington Post Column with the following, somewhat extraordinary statement.
Liberals who have sung the praises of John McCain in the past confront a fascinating test of consistency, integrity and political commitment ....I should know, since I'm one of them.
Now that Clinton has formally ended her bid for the presidential nomination, hopefully Democrats will start focusing more aggressively on the larger picture.
Back in early November, I suggested:
It is time for Democrats, instead of simply uttering conclusions, to use examples and the power of suggestion to make the case against their Republican counterparts.
Consider yet another recent hatchet job against a particular Democratic candidate, that received 813 comments, and made the recommended list.
Also consider the overall mountain of diaries ripping into Democratic candidates, in relation to the satirically understated conclusion of this diary by a NON Clinton supporter, defending Clinton from distorted attacks (fancy that):
It is time that Democrats, instead of simply uttering conclusions, used examples and the power of suggestion, to make the case against their Republican counterparts.
Take a cue from them. They are focused on Clinton, not each other. This does not mean that we should be as focused on Clinton as they are. Remember, we are on the other side.
This is the second part, of a two part series, identifying the patterns and tendencies that have enabled unchecked spying in America and related constitutional abuses.
The first major cause is a Far Right that is currently confusing big secretive unchecked government with patriotism, and in this instance with an acceptable strategy for gathering necessary anti terrorist intelligence. This series focuses on the two other main factors that have enabled this direction that we are currently taking.
A Open Letter to Jane Harman and Every Democratic and Moderate Republican Member of Congress, on Implementing the Constitution
This is an updated and expanded version of an article posted last week. While many of the ideas are new, the underlying theme of that piece is also important to repeat here, because it does not only seek to speak to each other on this site, but seeks a way to frame this in a manner that many Americans outside of here can relate to. And it at least begins to establish a plan of action, albeit only just a start. That is, it establishes some points and principles that can be effectively shared with our Democratic (and even some Moderate Republican) representatives in the House and Senate. And there is a call to action at the bottom.