AP Serves Up Pickler Slop, News Orgs Lap It Up

Nedra Pickler, writing for the Associated Press, penned an atrocious piece on Barack Obama's patriotism this week.  The article has rightly received loads of criticism and scorn throughout the blogosphere, as it was nothing more than a rehash of vile and debunked right-wing smears.  But the fact that Pickler scraped the blackened gunk from the bottom of the proverbial barrel to write her article didn't stop CNN and MSNBC and other news outlets from prominently featuring her steaming pile of journamalism.

While it's tempting to let Pickler's piece slide into the archived abyss of silly season as yet another example of (a) Pickler's sub-par reporting skills, and (b) the media's inability to discern jackassery from journalism, Pickler's article so egregiously offends both traditional standards of said journalism and traditional standards of logic that, like an on-looker who can't tear his eyes away from a grotesque accident, I find myself drawn to Pickler's horrific, mangled mess.

Let us begin with the the Associated Press Statement of News Values and Principles:

In the 21st century, that news is transmitted in more ways than ever before – in print, on the air and on the Web, with words, images, graphics, sounds and video. But always and in all media, we insist on the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior when we gather and deliver the news.

That means we abhor inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions. It means we will not knowingly introduce false information into material intended for publication or broadcast; nor will we alter photo or image content. Quotations must be accurate, and precise.

It's nice to see the AP set a bar for their reporter's conduct.  Now, let's see Pickler bend over backwards in a stunning display of journalistic limbo as she maneuvers well below that bar.

Pickler's article is framed by the lede that "conservatives on Internet and in the media" have been "led to question [Obama's] patriotism."  Eight paragraphs in, we finally get two sentences from Obama himself (well, actually, from Obama's speeches), in which he points out that he frequently says the Pledge of Allegiance and that he attends a Christian Church.  And Pickler also gives retired Major General Scott Gration, an Obama military adviser, two sentences to rebut the claim and to point out that Michelle and Barack Obama are "extremely patriotic." A few other sentences help to provide "balance."

But there are some forty sentences in Pickler's tripe, many of which are based upon the observations of four crazy, right-wing "sources."  Well, five if you count Cindy McCain.

But let us leave Cindy McCain aside for one moment, and turn our attention to "Republican consultant Roger Stone," "conservative Republican consultant Keith Appell," "Steve Doocy, co-host of "Fox and Friends" on the Fox News Channel," and "former radio host Mark Williams."

In the article, Pickler quotes right-wing radio host Mark Williams as saying that Obama "felt it OK to come out of the closet as the domestic insurgent he is."

As if that quote isn't enough to automatically disqualify anyone as a source for any story (unless that story is about the destructive rhetoric from the radical right), the full quote and context reveal that Pickler's choice is far, far worse than the article lets on:

WILLIAMS: It uh, well first of all, Obama's very different than those other names, in that Obama says he took his flag pin off after 9-11, and he felt, apparently, some sort of an affinity or some sort of a connection, because at that point he felt it OK to come out of the closet as the domestic insurgent he is.

CORN: Oh, you know --

WILLIAMS: The Democrat [sic] Party is coming out of the closet as the domestic insurgency and the domestic enemy.

Williams go on in that interview to spew more lies and propaganda, claiming that Obama is "do[ing] his part to undermine this nation" and that there are "domestic enemies" in the "Democrat [sic] Party."  So Pickler chose not to quote just any "conservative," but she chose to quote an individual who implied Obama had a "connection" with 9/11 terrorists and who stated that the Democratic Party is essentially a party of traitors. 

Not content with quoting just one vile wingnut, Pickler goes on to quote Roger Stone in all of his concern-trolling glory as he offers up that "many Americans" will find Obama's behavior "offensive."  Who is Roger Stone?  Well, as TPM and AmericaBlog point out, he is a longtime GOP trickster who is behind the group "Citizens United Not Timid: To Educate the American People About What Hillary Really Is."

And yes, folks, the bold font isn't for emphasis.  It's in their logo.  That's the group's acronym: C.U.N.T.

Steve Doocy, in turn, is well-known for, well, fitting in quite well with the rest of the gang over at Fox "News."

Ah, but wait!  It's not enough to have three conservative manipulators in one article.  The pièce de résistance of Pickler's piece is Keith Appell, a right-winger who was not only involved with the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies, but who was also a key player in pushing the Dan Rather story to Matt Drudge.  With credentials like that, he has to count for, like, four wingnuts, right?

There you have it.  "Journalism," Pickler-style.  One part rebuttal and 95 parts rubbish.  Mix them together, add a dash of sensationalism and a sprinkle of innuendo, spread over news outlets and, voilà!  Your noxious "story" is ready to be served to the masses, to that electorate whose news palate has become so desensitized by smears and sensationalism that it readily digests any garbage served to it by the failing fourth estate. 

Bon appétit, America.  You can deliver your compliments to the chef at info@ap.org.

Obama DIY Bumper Sticker

Apple MacBook Pro & Macbooks get updated: faster with multitouch

Well, the rumors were right on target -- new MacBook and MacBook Pros are finally here! Unlike the very minor updates in November, this refresh features across the board speed bumps, bigger hard drives, more stock RAM and for the MacBook Pro, a few new features sure to make every Apple fan's mouth water. Both lines are now featuring the new Penryn Core 2 Duo chipset, with the higher end MacBook Pro models taking advantage of a spectacular 6MB of L2 cache.

MacBook
The price configuration is the same same (starting at $1099 US for the non-Super Drive white base model, $1499 for the BlackBook), but the base features have received a nice upgrade. The significant changes:

• Processor speeds now start at 2.1 GHz for the base model, 2.4 GHz for the $1299 and $1499 models
• 120 GB drive is standard for the base level MacBook, 160 GB for the $1299 MacBook and a whopping 250 GB drive for the BlackBook. All drives are 5400 RPM
• 2 GB RAM standard for all but entry-level MacBooks (that remains at 1 GB)

MacBook Pro

• Processor speeds now start at 2.4 GHz, and are available up to 2.6 GHz (2.5 GHz is standard for the 17"); the new 2.5 GHz chip has 6 MB of L2 cache
• The MBP 17" now has an LED backlit screen option
• 200 GB is the starting HD size (this is up from 120 GB in the last revision), 250 GB standard for the upper 15" and 17" models. A 300 GB drive is available BTO, as is a 7200 rpm 200 GB drive
• NVidia 8600GT now starts at 256 MB of VRAM -- 512 for the higher end 15" and stock 17"
• Multi-touch trackpad a la the Air.

All in all, some very nice updates -- particularly for the MacBook. The basic specs for the BlackBook and entry-level MacBook Pro are so similar, I have to think the MacBook is the better deal for anyone who doesn't need the dedicated graphics card.

The Apple Remote is no longer included in the box. That's right, you know have to spend an extra $19, for what I think is one of the most convenient Mac accessories. With $18 billion in cash, you'd think they could throw in something that we all know probably costs $0.30 to make. Oh well.

The Audacity of Hopelessness

By FRANK RICH

WHEN people one day look back at the remarkable implosion of the Hillary Clinton campaign, they may notice that it both began and ended in the long dark shadow of Iraq.

It’s not just that her candidacy’s central premise — the priceless value of “experience” — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco. Senator Clinton then compounded that 2002 misjudgment by pursuing a 2008 campaign strategy that uncannily mimicked the disastrous Bush Iraq war plan. After promising a cakewalk to the nomination — “It will be me,” Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in November — she was routed by an insurgency.

The Clinton camp was certain that its moneyed arsenal of political shock-and-awe would take out Barack Hussein Obama in a flash. The race would “be over by Feb. 5,” Mrs. Clinton assured George Stephanopoulos just before New Year’s. But once the Obama forces outwitted her, leaving her mission unaccomplished on Super Tuesday, there was no contingency plan. She had neither the boots on the ground nor the money to recoup.

That’s why she has been losing battle after battle by double digits in every corner of the country ever since. And no matter how much bad stuff happened, she kept to the Bush playbook, stubbornly clinging to her own Rumsfeld, her chief strategist, Mark Penn. Like his prototype, Mr. Penn is bigger on loyalty and arrogance than strategic brilliance. But he’s actually not even all that loyal. Mr. Penn, whose operation has billed several million dollars in fees to the Clinton campaign so far, has never given up his day job as chief executive of the public relations behemoth Burson-Marsteller. His top client there, Microsoft, is simultaneously engaged in a demanding campaign of its own to acquire Yahoo.

Clinton fans don’t see their standard-bearer’s troubles this way. In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid. Or as Mrs. Clinton frames it, Senator Obama is all about empty words while she is all about action and hard work.

But it’s the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.

The gap in hard work between the two campaigns was clear well before Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the Iowa caucuses without ever matching Mr. Obama’s organizational strength. In South Carolina, where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots. In Kansas, three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3.

In the last battleground, Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign was six days behind Mr. Obama in putting up ads and had only four campaign offices to his 11. Even as Mrs. Clinton clings to her latest firewall — the March 4 contests — she is still being outhustled. Last week she told reporters that she “had no idea” that the Texas primary system was “so bizarre” (it’s a primary-caucus hybrid), adding that she had “people trying to understand it as we speak.” Perhaps her people can borrow the road map from Obama’s people. In Vermont, another March 4 contest, The Burlington Free Press reported that there were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago. For what will no doubt be the next firewall after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22, the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn’t file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline.

This is the candidate who keeps telling us she’s so competent that she’ll be ready to govern from Day 1. Mrs. Clinton may be right that Mr. Obama has a thin résumé, but her disheveled campaign keeps reminding us that the biggest item on her thicker résumé is the health care task force that was as botched as her presidential bid.

Given that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama offer marginally different policy prescriptions — laid out in voluminous detail by both, by the way, on their Web sites — it’s not clear what her added-value message is. The “experience” mantra has been compromised not only by her failure on the signal issue of Iraq but also by the deadening lingua franca of her particular experience, Washingtonese. No matter what the problem, she keeps rolling out another commission to solve it: a commission for infrastructure, a Financial Product Safety Commission, a Corporate Subsidy Commission, a Katrina/Rita Commission and, to deal with drought, a water summit.

As for countering what she sees as the empty Obama brand of hope, she offers only a chilly void: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country.

Bill Clinton knocked states that hold caucuses instead of primaries because “they disproportionately favor upper-income voters” who “don’t really need a president but feel like they need a change.” After the Potomac primary wipeout, Mr. Penn declared that Mr. Obama hadn’t won in “any of the significant states” outside of his home state of Illinois. This might come as news to Virginia, Maryland, Washington and Iowa, among the other insignificant sites of Obama victories. The blogger Markos Moulitsas Zúniga has hilariously labeled this Penn spin the “insult 40 states” strategy.

The insults continued on Tuesday night when a surrogate preceding Mrs. Clinton onstage at an Ohio rally, Tom Buffenbarger of the machinists’ union, derided Obama supporters as “latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies.” Even as he ranted, exit polls in Wisconsin were showing that Mr. Obama had in fact won that day among voters with the least education and the lowest incomes. Less than 24 hours later, Mr. Obama received the endorsement of the latte-drinking Teamsters.

If the press were as prejudiced against Mrs. Clinton as her campaign constantly whines, debate moderators would have pushed for the Clinton tax returns and the full list of Clinton foundation donors to be made public with the same vigor it devoted to Mr. Obama’s “plagiarism.” And it would have showered her with the same ridicule that Rudy Giuliani received in his endgame. With 11 straight losses in nominating contests, Mrs. Clinton has now nearly doubled the Giuliani losing streak (six) by the time he reached his Florida graveyard. But we gamely pay lip service to the illusion that she can erect one more firewall.

The other persistent gripe among some Clinton supporters is that a hard-working older woman has been unjustly usurped by a cool young guy intrinsically favored by a sexist culture. Slate posted a devilish video mash-up of the classic 1999 movie “Election”: Mrs. Clinton is reduced to a stand-in for Tracy Flick, the diligent candidate for high school president played by Reese Witherspoon, and Mr. Obama is implicitly cast as the mindless jock who upsets her by dint of his sheer, unearned popularity.

There is undoubtedly some truth to this, however demeaning it may be to both candidates, but in reality, the more consequential ur-text for the Clinton 2008 campaign may be another Hollywood classic, the Katharine Hepburn-Spencer Tracy “Pat and Mike” of 1952. In that movie, the proto-feminist Hepburn plays a professional athlete who loses a tennis or golf championship every time her self-regarding fiancé turns up in the crowd, pulling her focus and undermining her confidence with his grandstanding presence.

In the 2008 real-life remake of “Pat and Mike,” it’s not the fiancé, of course, but the husband who has sabotaged the heroine. The single biggest factor in Hillary Clinton’s collapse is less sexism in general than one man in particular — the man who began the campaign as her biggest political asset. The moment Bill Clinton started trash-talking about Mr. Obama and raising the specter of a co-presidency, even to the point of giving his own televised speech ahead of his wife’s on the night she lost South Carolina, her candidacy started spiraling downward.

What’s next? Despite Mrs. Clinton’s valedictory tone at Thursday’s debate, there remains the fear in some quarters that whether through sleights of hand involving superdelegates or bogus delegates from Michigan or Florida, the Clintons might yet game or even steal the nomination. I’m starting to wonder. An operation that has waged political war as incompetently as the Bush administration waged war in Iraq is unlikely to suddenly become smart enough to pull off that duplicitous a “victory.” Besides, after spending $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts in January alone, this campaign simply may not have the cash on hand to mount a surge.

Article courtesy of the New York Times.

Life

The Crew, originally uploaded by joelhousman.

Marie's memorial service was yesterday. She would have been happy with it I think, although as I told Steve, she would have berated us all for crying so much. Her family honored me greatly by allowing me to assist with her continued travel in this world and I thank them profusely for that. Jacob said the most comforting thing that I heard anyone say yesterday when he recited one of Marie's favorite quotes:

Dance like no one's watching, love like you'll never be hurt, sing like no one's listening, live like it's heaven on earth. - William Pukey

Marie always did find the best quotes.

We'll Miss You...

Marie Lisa Opetaia-Williamson, 25, passed on this morning after a year & a half struggle with Leukemia. All of her friends will miss her very very much.

Marie Lisa Opetaia-Williamson, March 22nd 1982 - February 16th 2008. I'll never forget what a wonderful person she was.

John Lewis, Superdelegate, switches from Clinton to Obama

A few months ago, when Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) endorsed Hillary Clinton, it was a key development. Lewis, a Democratic icon and civil-right legend, became Clinton’s highest-profile African-American supporter, and sent a signal to the party about Clinton’s strong connection to the African-American community.

As I understand it, Lewis was, a few months prior, undecided on whether to support Clinton or Barack Obama, but cajoling from Bill Clinton reportedly pushed the Georgia congressman into Sen. Clinton’s camp.

Now, it appears circumstances have pushed Lewis in the other direction.

Representative John Lewis, an elder statesman from the civil rights era and one of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most prominent black supporters, said Thursday night that he planned to cast his vote as a superdelegate for Senator Barack Obama in hopes of preventing a fight at the Democratic convention.

“In recent days, there is a sense of movement and a sense of spirit,” said Mr. Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who endorsed Mrs. Clinton last fall. “Something is happening in America, and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap.”

Mr. Lewis, who carries great influence among other members of Congress, disclosed his decision in an interview in which he said that as a superdelegate he could “never, ever do anything to reverse the action” of the voters of his district, who overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama.

“I’ve been very impressed with the campaign of Senator Obama,” Mr. Lewis said. “He’s getting better and better every single day.”

Time’s Mark Halperin argued that Clinton’s chances of winning the Democratic nomination, in light of Lewis’ announcement, have been cut in half. That strikes me as a bit of an exaggeration, but I think it’s certainly fair to say this is a major development.

Right off the bat, it’s worth remembering that not all superdelegates carry equal stature and credibility. Lewis is one of the most respected and admired lawmakers in the party. He carries enormous, almost unrivaled, moral authority, and his switch may very well lead others to do the same.

Moreover, it leaves the Clinton campaign’s broader superdelegate strategy looking suspect. The principal reason to distrust the superdelegate counts we see in the media is that these are people who haven’t actually voted yet. They can, and will, change their minds, and are susceptible to prevailing political winds and shifts in momentum. It’s obviously too soon to say, but Lewis’ announcement may signal a break in the dam.

The Clinton campaign has suggested in recent days that the superdelegates would be their ace in the hole. That may no longer be the case. Josh Marshall explained:

The Clinton camp’s super delegate gambit is not only audacious. Far more than that it is simply unrealistic. The super delegates who are gettable for Clinton by loyalty, conviction or coercion are already got. And enough’s been seen of both candidates for everyone to be more than acquainted with them. The ones who remain — who make up roughly half the total — are waiting to see who the winner is.

The truth is that there are over 1000 elected delegates remain to be won. We really don’t know what’s going to happen yet. But if the trend continues and Obama ends the primary season with a clear majority of unelected delegates, the idea that those remaining super delegates will break for the candidate who won fewer delegates, raised less money and is polling worse against the Republican nominee simply makes no sense.

My hunch is this hurts Clinton most because it seems to represent a tipping point. To be sure, it may not be, but that’s certainly the perception that many Democrats may have this morning. The post-Super Tuesday period has been an awkward one for her campaign, between a string of defeats and a significant staff shake-up. But there was also a sense that, if Clinton could keep her team together and focus on some likely victories down the road, this unpleasant streak could pass.

Lewis’ move, in this sense, signals that time may not be on Clinton’s side.

From crooks & liars.

Sailing

IMG_2096.CR2, originally uploaded by Tuz.