Report: Liberal Bloggers Mostly Skeptical Of Times Story About McCain
Ben Smith has a nice wrap-up of the skepticism that's greeted the McCain story in many quarters of the liberal blogosphere:
Many widely read liberal bloggers, breaking with partisan patterns, are expressing discomfort with the Times' reporting and offering conditional defenses of McCain...The defense of McCain from the left reflects well on the blogs' objectivity, and they certainly aren't defending McCain on the substantive issues of the election. Indeed, they've been leading the way in trying to break the mainstream media's long love affair with McCain, to paint him as a Bush conservative and as a dangerous hard-liner on foreign policy and Iraq.
Still, their even treatment of the subject may disturb Democratic strategists who are relying on the bloggers to serve, in every case, as the kind of partisan strike force that conservative blogs and talk radio were in 2004.
A fun postscript: I emailed that last graf -- the one saying that the failure of lib bloggers to toe the partisan line on this story would worry Dem strategists counting on them to be a "partisan strike force" -- to a Democratic operative I know. His response:
"Goddamn right."
While I can appreciate the desire to have the attack dogs that the right has, in the long run, demonstrating objectivity and professionalism is best for leftwing blogs, and, for the party.
It's just that I sort of agree with the Dem operative because in "the long run", a whole lotta crap can happen...
February 21, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I realize your point and agree with it but I found the idea of a "strike force" composed of a bunch of people in front of keyboards that spend a lot of time talking about things on the internet pretty amusing. At the moment that's what I'm doing and I don't feel very fierce.
YAR! Tremble with fear at our typing speed!
February 21, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
After Obama wins the nomination I'll put the fangs in.
February 21, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if the skepticism among left-leaning blogs does not emerge, at least in part, from the fact that this was partly a sex-scandal piece. I know that my immediate reaction to the story was to discount it because, after living through the endless "scandals" of the Clinton administration, my immediate reaction to "politician involved with woman who is not his wife" is to sort the story into the "irrelevant dross" category.
February 21, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point. I was thinking in a similar vein.
February 21, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
We do rock :P
February 21, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rock is a pillar of the Democratic platform.
February 21, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there are a couple different angles for this.
The Times piece was slimy and created innuendo that just wasn't there. I think the piece would have been better if it took a deeper look at the record of McCain intervening for the people she lobbied for.
The biggest disappointment is that the piece had some meat in it, in terms of McCain's credibility, but the flow of the piece and the allusion of sex makes the story the story and not McCain's questionable actions on behalf of the lobbiest.
He said in his press-conference that he never compromised his positions for private or special interest, but didn't he admit in a book that he did stray from the straight and narrow for Mr. Keating.
It's things like that are going to be lost. Already the discussion is the story and the innuendo of sex, when for me, it's his integrity, which people won't be talking about any more.
February 21, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a surprise. Left blogs also showed skepticism about the authenticity about the Bush National Guard documents presented by Rather in the notorious 60 minutes report.
In both cases, a few weaknesses in the reporting undermined bigger stories which were essentially true.
February 21, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, count me in for not being skeptical. If mccain didn't have a long history of these types of shenanigans I would be skeptical. Also, the lobbiest looks like a younger twin of his wife, which is very, very suspicious. Sorry, not skeptical of the report by the times. I am willing to bet that there is more info that will come out.
Problem I have is the lobbyist issues. Notwithstanding his alleged straight talk, he is totally in bed, literally and figuratively, with them. I don't care if the guy is doing orgies, that really isn't the issue.
February 21, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep looks like a mountain out of a mole hill. Though has anyone noticed it has taken the heat off Michele and Obama in general. Can't imagine HRC is too thrilled.
February 21, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you can hardly count Josh Marshall as one of the really "uncomfortable" left wing bloggers on this issue, can you? Where do you see his deep reservations articulated yet? Instead, we just see smarmy innuendo (Oh yes, he's just so sure that there's real meat behind these charges, even if it hasn't been in any way produced as yet -- it's coming! it's got to be coming!) Of course, he may jump on the bandwagon -- he's that kind of wonderful brave guy.
Which brings me to another point on which Josh Marshall shows his capacity for objectivity and careful thought when it comes to John McCain.
Here's the context.
McCain criticized Obama thusly:
"The best idea is not broadcast what you are going to do. That's naïve," McCain said at a news conference in Columbus.
"You make plans and you work with the other country that is your ally and friend, which Pakistan is," McCain added. "You don't broadcast and say you are going bomb the country without their permission or without consulting them. This is the fundamentals of the conduct of national security policy. I believe in working with the other country."
I bold and italicize above so that the basic point of criticism might be understood even by those whom Nature has slighted.
How does this guy Josh Marshall summarize this?
No, excuse me, the absolutely clear point of McCain's criticism is that you don't broadcast that you are going to do so. As McCain points out, broadcasting you are going to do so simply embarrasses an ally in fighting terrorism.
Is this point just too subtle to understand for anybody possessed of a real intelligence?
Obviously, it overwhelms the limited capacities of Josh Marshall.
February 21, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
My problem with the sex angle-- other than the obvious thinness-- is that it obscures what should be the "corruption" angle of the story.
February 22, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Consultants believe that the only thing that ever matters is the politics of right now and combat with the opposition. It never stops. If you have an opportunity to kick the other guy you just take it because winning is the only thing that matters. Right wingers universally believe this to be the case whether or not they are consultants.
I'm very proud and glad that liberal/left/ progressive blogs don't do that as we are witnessing as the NYT McCain innuendo issue is debated. In addition to seeing our side win elections, Left Blogistan also wants to see the media reformed and improved and really restored to doing journalism and presenting news instead of lurid gossip and thinly supported allegations. These crazies in Left Blogistan actually believe the media has an obligation to inform the public about issues that matter and that those things should be the focus of the media. Imagine that?
The real "issue" they are putting out there is nothing more than implying a sex scandal for McCain and if that's all there is, Left Blogistan is right to condem such shallow tabloid journalism. If the real issue is McCain's relationship caused him to do favors for the clients of his bimbo that's different from "McCain had a bimbo". But from what I am reading on TPM Muckraker this morning there's plenty of material to report on that could shed light on how hypocritical McCain is about being a reformer and the "antilobbyist" when all his main advisers are in fact, lobbyists. That's an issue.
When the NYT or other leading institutions of alleged "journalism" run crap like the Iseman allegations as though that is what is important it damages their credibility and rightly so. Perhaps the pressure Left Blogistan continues to put on corporate journalism will begin now to have greater impact as they put more and more egg on their faces and undermine their own credibility by engaging in more gossip, speculation and rumor vs hard news reporting.
But what am I saying here? I must be insane to think these morons will change as long as their leadership remains as second rate as it is and the dipshits who brought us Whitewater, Chandra Levy and the never ending Brittney crisis are in charge. The people making decisions at the major corporate news organizations don't give a damn about anything other than themselves. Nonetheless, it's still a good thing that Left Blogistan is pressuring them to do better and says a whole lot that's positive about the motivation and purpose of Left Blogistan generally vs the right and also in contrast to the corporate media who have so badly failed the nation and been so negligent in the performance of their duty to the public now for many, many years.
February 22, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink