« New Batch Of Ads Suggests Outside Groups Are Gearing Up | Home | A Day At The Congressional Races »

CNN's Candy Crowley: Not My Role To Judge Who The Bigger Liar Is

If McCain gets away with his strategic gamble that he can tell non-stop lies without paying any kind of price for it, it will be because of people like CNN's Candy Crowley.

Crowley's performance last night was astonishing. Asked whether McCain's lies have been worse than Obama's, Crowley says she isn't going to make that call, adds that it's up to voters to sort it out, and -- best of all -- launches into a discussion of Obama's supposed falsehoods in order to argue that both sides do it...

Crowley occupies a very influential position. Her gig is presumably to go on CNN and inform viewers about the presidential race. The central story of the race right now, by any measure, is the very clear calculation by McCain and his advisers that they can essentially fictionalize the McCain-Palin ticket with a nonstop stream of complete falsehoods without being held sufficiently accountable by the press for voters to catch on. What McCain is doing is not remotely comparable to anything Obama is doing.

To his credit, Mark Halperin stepped in and made just this point, noting quite accurately that the lies of the McCain campaign are far more central to his campaign than anything Obama has done.

Halperin isn't some whiny liberal blogger. He's the ultimate D.C. media insider. If he can't persuade both-sides-do-it holdouts like Crowley to inform their viewers, then no one can.

"I'm not going to be the one to tell you whether it's equal or not," Crowley said of the lying on both sides. Really? If CNN reporters don't think this is their role, whose job is it, then?


102 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

I watched Candy Crowley say she wouldn't judge then spent the next 3 minutes bashing Obama for ticky-tacky crap and trying to exonerate McCain from blame. It was stunning.

The silver lining is that "Oh, they all do it!" and "A pox on both their houses!" is a telltale sign that there's just no place the Candy Crowleys can go with McCain. They only do this because there's simply no defending him, now; he's left the media whores nothing to work with.

Rejoice.

McCain's strategy reminds me of football, where all of the linemen hold on every play. There are so many penalties the refs can't call them all, so they only call the most egregious. So McCain gets away with 99% of his lies because there are so many he can't be called on all of them.

Cindy Crowley is about herself as she likes to portray herself as an election guru....but in reality she is somewhat "dim" in her intellect and unable to preform effectively. Once a tool, always a tool...

I feel the same. She is an Obama supporter, I think, but seems to him and haw whenever anything comes up and never really makes a good point.

user-pic
CNN's Candy Crowley: Not My Role To Judge Who The Bigger Liar Is

Hey Greg - was that Bigger a Freudian slip or did you do that on purpose?


LOL!

I'm sorry, I am offended by Candy Crowley. I don't like having someone who is morbidly obese giving me advice about anything at all.

I don't like making that look normal because it isn't. She's not just plump or curvy - she's morbidly obese.

"I don't like having someone who is morbidly obese giving me advice about anything at all.

I don't like making that look normal because it isn't. She's not just plump or curvy - she's morbidly obese."


This has nothing to do with crowley's incomptance

I agree. She is incompetent for being ignorant, not for being fat. If she was giving health news or workout advice, then I might hold it against her, but otherwise I don't really think it's relevant.

user-pic

I agree.

But I'm sorry, she's put herself out there and that's how I feel about her.

Maybe that's my failing -

user-pic

Maybe that's my failing -

Yup.

And in the world of personality driven politics how you "feel" about someone who's "put herself out there" is all that matters. There are no standards of what constitutes a proper argument, there is no difference between a criticism of someone's ideas and someone's personal appearance. It's all a narcissistic game for us to express ourselves.

Sure it does!

A woman who has let herself become unhealthy and a candidate for early Death, due to her lack of self-control, who teaches Republican morality to the millions (by virtue of her Beltway Establishment-biased reporting)... it's like... oh, I dunno... a woman who insists that your daughters learn Abstinence Only, and then her 17 year-old kid gets knocked up by some dumbass hockey-playing slob, and you're supposed to lionize both of these redneck assholes?

It's like that.

or it could have been her thyroid?

user-pic

Could be.

But I'll tell you this - and it's not political correct, I suppose, but this country is way overweight. I see kids who are morbidly obese and I don't really approve of making that normal.

It bothers me - there's no good reason to make it look normal for a kid or an adult to be that large. It's not normal. Sorry.

This country has a weight problem and this attempt to make it look as if that's ok is not ok, IMO.

It bothers me - there's no good reason to make it look normal for a kid or an adult to be that large. It's not normal. Sorry.

In all of this person's posts, replace the words obese, large, or fat with black and you'll begin to clearly understand the hypocrisy of so many Obama loyalists.

What a disgusting little child.

They have these things called "doctors".

George H.W. Bush had a thyroid problem and it was handled. Candy Crowley has a fine CNN health insurance plan (unlike many of the "Kansans" that the Crowleys preach to).

A lot of people are chubby. The morbidly obese ones... and I have personally known and loved two of them who reached their fifties and DIED, because they're just not destined to last much longer!.. simply let it get out of control, due to the lack of committment. There is no more to it, than that.

Which is their prerogative, admittedly. It's their lives. My goddamned beef comes when they start the Republican mantra about how only they have "values", and you are a scum-sucking slug.

S.O.P. to take their own weakenesses, and lay them on YOU. And I, for one, have had enough.

She IS morbidly obese; it IS her own damned fault; and she has one fucking hell of a nerve advancing the Beltway spin (which normally references the GOP "values" hype), if she's such a weakling that she's gonna die from her lazy habits.

That's my position. Deal with it.

user-pic

When Fox has dumb bimbos on to talk about things they don't know about, they are easy on the eyes at least. Just turn off the sound and enjoy.

user-pic

I feel that way about Hagee.

That dude is quite fat.

He must eat as much as he prays.

Candy want's to stay close to the rich and powerful.

That always pays well and the food is always top-shelf.

That's why I relentlessly bash Republican Loyalists.

Sticking up for the rich is no virtue.

And substituting vitriol for facts does not require intellect

kind regards.

The hell?

Eight years ago, I married a wonderful woman who is morbidly obese and has been fighting a glandular disorder all her life. I've watched her show incredible discipline - more than I suspect I would have in the same situation - to control her weight and stay in shape. Last year, we did a 20-mile charity walk together, and although she was close to tears by the end, she crossed the finish line with flying colors. And when I need advice, which is often, I get it from her and am grateful.

I've been a long-time lurker here and have always admired your optimism and political priorities, but this is way the hell over the line. Obesity isn't a moral failing. Candy Crowley has plenty of moral shortcomings, but that isn't one of them.

Not so fast, Jonathan.

Your wife is a statistical rarity, if disease caused her morbid obesity. And I'll wager she doesn't put in a grueling week as a nationally televised political reporter, because she's too sick to have a high-powered career. Candy Crowley isn't sick (yet).

You are taking a lot of argumentative liberties, putting Candy Crowley in the same bag as your lovely wife. Speaking as one individual here, I do NOT give Ms. Crowley a pass, based on the existence and condition of your sick wife (and our best wishes for her).

I think Mr. Edelstein's point is that you have as much information about the dietary and metabolic particulars of Candy Crowley as you do his wife, which is to say, no information at all. What blows my mind is that, to criticize Ms. Crowley, one needn't resort to ad hominem or even idle speculation---she has proven herself, by her professional conduct, a sub-par journalist, and therefore worthy of heaps of ridicule about her professional conduct. Anything else simply distracts from that issue.

Wrong.

We see Candy Crowley, working vigorously, several times per week on-camera even.

Simple deductive reasoning tells you that a person with a work load like that cannot possibly be suffering from a chronic, debilitating disease of any kind, for any length of time; she's been at this forever, too.

Which leaves, what? Thank you. Bitch eats too much.

(Disclaimer: at some point in her life, she WILL be quite sick. You'll not see a fat, 65 year-old Candy... one way or another!)

... also, read my earlier fulmination, about how people with overt personal weaknesses should not be the media whores of "values" Republicans. Her reprehensible "performance" is just that, for that very reason, and it absolutely IS relevant.

Bitch eats too much.

...and for this bit of stupidity, replace the word bitch with - oh, I don't know... darkie?

Hypocritical, nastly little 'bots.


No, she doesn't put in a grueling day as a political reporter (I assume that's sarcasm?) but she does her 40 a week as an associate editor at a magazine. She's the one who brings the health insurance into the family.

She isn't one of the people you see on TV; she hovers between 90 and 110 pounds overweight, although that's all the personal information I'm comfortable giving out. Fortunately, her glandular issues can be mostly controlled with medication (although the key word here is "mostly"). And when she does things like walking 20 miles, I'm incredibly proud of her.

The thing is that the only reason she isn't a senior editor right now is attitudes like yours. She's been doing a senior editor's job for the past five years, but here are a lot of people who can't see past her body to the disciplined and dedicated person underneath. And, you know, that's much more of a moral failing in my book than obesity could possibly be.

Yes, I agree that obesity is a serious health problem in this country. There are other health problems, though, and I don't see people who suffer from them being condemned in the same way. I don't hear much condemnation of diabetics, for instance, although many people with Type 2 diabetes also did it to themselves. And the only ones who rant about HIV+ people are Palin's fundie groupies. Think about it.

No, she doesn't put in a grueling day as a political reporter (I assume that's sarcasm?)

Take that LITERALLY. You LITERALLY can't do the job of a high-profile network journalist, such as Candy Crowley, if you have a chronic disease.

This ain't like your "job", my friend. And it isn't like putting in "hours" as an editor, either. It takes a superperson to fly around the world at a moment's notice; be on deadline; perform on cue; have your hours dictated by the unfolding events of the day or night. Whether or not you approve of the results, and it's a cinch none of us approve of her.

Most people in this position can't even make their marriages last. Doing this with glandular abnormalities, acute diabetes, or something like that, is just not possible.

Which, as I have stressed repeatedly, is the "tell" when it comes to the lovely and talented Ms. Crowley. She's a lecturing media whore, whose own house is dirty. There is no point in defending her.

Why don't you just shut the hell up?
Really, why don't you?
I'm a 40 year old guy, and I've weighed 130 or 135 pounds since I was in high school. Oh, and I'm 6'1". It isn't because I diet and it isn't because I run 5 miles a day, it's because that's how I was born. My sister's like me, my mother & father are like me, and their mothers and fathers are like me. I'm not any "better" or "more discipline" than fat people are; I'm just skinny.
And there are a lot of fat people who are just going to be fat, however much they diet and however much they exercise.
You don't know the first damned thing about the other guy's wife, and you don't know the first damned thing about Crowley, either. You don't know what her metabolism is, you don't know what her mother & father looked like, you don't know what she might have going on with her health...
And you don't know whether somebody with a glandular disorder or diabetes could do her job or not; you might think you do, but, again, you don't have the first damned clue. What you DO have is an opinion, but as the saying goes, opinions are like assholes: everybody has one. So why don't you keep your misinformed and ignorant opinion to yourself. And that goes for everybody else here spouting off their "wisdom" about how lazy and pathetic fat people are. Believe it if you want to, but just shut the hell up about it.
It isn't like there isn't enough else to criticize Candy Crowley about as it is without piling on her for something that maybe she can't help. We don't know, any of us, so let's just not speculate. We may HAVE assholes, but we don't have to BE assholes.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks!!

Oddly enough, I heard there is a Candy Crowley and Tucker Bounds sex tape floating around out there. That must be riveting. Those rascally republicans, way to get it on!

"I'm sorry, I am offended by Candy Crowley. I don't like having someone who is morbidly obese giving me advice about anything at all."

Tena, you are nuts. LOL But in the best way possible though..

Uh, no. In the worst, most disgusting way possible. All of this mindless chatter about "change" and at the end of the day what do we get? Garbage. There is absolutely no difference between this crap and overt racism. Both are based on mindless hatred and ignorance.

Wow! I never expected to encounter this kind of outright prejudice on my favorite political blog.

The "common knowledge" about fat in our culture is as riddled with lies as the McCain campaign. I recommend this Colorado law professor's talk at a major obesity conference. He talks about the fallacy of taking on the "war on fat" as a social issue. It's about money.

As a special bonus, he's funny, too.

http://www.colorado.edu/law/faculty/campos_movie.htm

Keep'n it klassy, as always.

I watched it as it happened a bit of a train wreck and I thought her head might explode as she tried to spurt it all out intelligently... I was almost as uncomfortable watching it as I am anytime I see McCain try to make a point.

The lies just keep on coming. Did you know John McCain invented the phone. Screw that Bell guy.

No, really, he did, just ask Douglas Holtz-Eakin:

Asked what work John McCain did as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee that helped him understand the financial markets, the candidate's top economic adviser wielded visual evidence: his BlackBerry.

"He did this," Douglas Holtz-Eakin told reporters this morning, holding up his BlackBerry. "Telecommunications of the United States is a premier innovation in the past 15 years, comes right through the Commerce committee so you're looking at the miracle John McCain helped create and that's what he did."

Al Gore, call your office.

(h/t The Politico)

What she just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in her rambling, incoherrent response was she close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone is now dumber for having listened to Crowley.

Pufferfish

I happened to be watching at the same time and my reaction was exactly the same. "If that's not your job then what the f**k is your job."

Another member of the MIM...Morons In Media.

user-pic

Her job is to spoonfeed the masses a bunch of pre-packaged baby food. It's sickening really.

All the more reason to not watch CNN. They have somehow, become some sort of FOX Spin clone.

Campbell Brown was doing the same thing on the 8:00 show last night . . . .

Reports like Candy Crowley, John Roberts, Anderson Cooper and Jessica Yellin is the reason why I had my cable provider block CNN. At one point CNN was a somewhat credible news source, but this past primary election it became a proxy for the Clinton campaign and now its an extension of FOX noise.

The saddest part was that, to his eternal credit, Anderson Cooper, kept prefacing his remarks to everyone with "tomorrow we will deal with Sen. Obama's campaign) and yet, Candy felt it necessary to be so preemptively vehement about talking solely about the Obama campaign, in a show focused on the egregious McLame. Pathetic.

user-pic

AND McInsane invented the telephone while he was being tortured . . . A true testament to his focus and power of will . . . AND he did it while NOT using the internet tubes and e-mail because he was a POW POW POW.

"Cindy Crowley" : NICE!

user-pic

could someone post Crowley's email so we could all respond to her inaccurate, poorly worded response on this question.

One Candy Crowley email addy coming right up:

candy.crowley@cnn.com


A commenter above brought up Candy Crowley's weight. That is irrelevant. Do you also discount the reporting of reporters of ethnic backgrounds you don't like? Or if they are too tall? Or too short? Or you don't like their haircolor?

It is important that we stick to issues and not personal attacks. Dislike Candy Crowley's reporting for its failures but her weight has nothing to do with it.

That said, I wrote to Ms. Crowley in a brief, respectful manner, gave her my opinion and if you are so inclined, do the same.

What gets me is the accepted rationale that news coverage neeeds to be "balanced." Someone needs to point out to Crowley and her pals that news coverage should be OBJECTIVE.

It is really time for a holy war against the biased media. It needs to come from the people. We need to organize mass responses to this kind of clap trap and make them understand that there will be a very heavy price to pay.

There is an uprising, it's just not on cable. News websites and blogs I think offer more objective news than anywhere, they usually provide facts if it is true, and you can easily go to the source. Cable news and talk radio has morphed into entertainment, not news. They push for drama, and conflict because that is when people watch the news. If everything is good, no one watches and thus their ratings drop followed by their bottom line.

People just need to know that, it's entertainment and a business. They want to maximize their earnings and can only do that if there is drama. A blowout creates no drama.

I'm not sure why my previous comment on this thread is "held for approval". Greg?

To see if you have any lice. Hold still. Put this bag over your head.

So eloquent. So refined. She's really after my elitist heart.

If Crowley has put in 10 positive reports about Obama all political season, I'd be surprised. I don't know why you are.

Yesterday, I did a diary claiming that McCain's post-modern campaign represents an existential threat to democracy in this country. What is really stunning to me is that people who call themselves journalists are blinding themselvesto the fact that McCain's campaign clearly represents an existential threat to journalism. McCain's campaign has said, both in explicit words and through its actions, that it does not believe that the press has any special place in our political system. They have postured their entire campaign upon the theory that the media has finally been completely decertified, that it has no role as an arbiter of truth or even that there is such a thing as objective truth that is important to our politics.

When people like Crowley do this, they are actively aiding and abetting the murder of their own profession. They are willing consenting to become what they got furious at Stephen Colbert for calling them to their faces--transcriptionists, mere providers of "content" to fill up airtime. Not that TV news hasn't been headed that way ever since they started CNN, but you'd think an alarm bell would start going off in some of their empty little noggins . . .

The postmodernist landscape of this election is interesting to see. The surrogates are "transcriptionists". The pundits "bloviators." The candidates "avatars" of themselves. The language employed is not some absolutist means of communication but a very cynical construction of distractions, distortions and meaninglessness designed to tenderize our brains so we cling to images, symbols, key words, representations, and 'verisimilitudes' of substance - to cop a postmodernist term.

I know very little about what is happening but I can sense it. I am sure there are those like yourself who know more of the theory at work here.

I think though that what we are doing here "in" these blogs too is a part of this landscape. And there is no getting away from it now.

But, I agree, journalism is suffering a great deal today. I don't know that anyone really knows what to do about it. It will take someone with enough smarts and no doubt corporate backing to create a new context ( I will not say 'paradigm')within which we can make better sense of it all so journalists can resume their role as reporters of the truth.


I meant to comment, Steve, that it was an EXCELLENT diary you had, too.

You nailed it: if McCain is elected via this say-anything agenda, it literally changes the game forever. There will never again be any incentive to bring the facts of a candidate to the table, prior to electing a leader in this nation.

"Democracy" is totally dependent upon decisions made by the populace over issues. McCain's stooge has already said, in no uncertain terms, that "this election will not be about issues". Translation: "Fuck democracy!"

In short, it will mean officially that in the information age, "democracy" no longer works as a viable form of governing, because it will have been proven that the "democratic process" can be easily gamed, with no official refs to cry foul.

If McCain wins the presidency of the United States by promoting a fictional character as the candidate, then the whole concept of voting is invalidated.

user-pic

The reporter who ran the package on McCain's lies ended by saying, "It's getting ugly...ON BOTH SIDES."

Sigh.

If Crowley doesn't think that's her job, then she shouldn't, at the least, be on a round-table discussing the very issue.

http://strategy08.wordpress.com

This is what encourages some to think "they're all crooks."

The devil, he's in the details. Some are more crooked than others. Some not even crooked.

We need to write to this woman and remind her that the press is obligated to report 'the facts' and they could better do this by not taking money for and allowing advertisements that they knows to be lies. This is being political, involving themselves in the lie. They do not get to 'distance' themself from the lies. It does not matter who the candidates are their advertisements need to be factual. We have to pus the media to do their job and stop them from playing victim ad rolling over on their responsibilities. Does anyone know how to write to this woman?

Crowley's very, very good at her job- which is to present Republican talking points in their best possible light. During Florida 2000 she represented the Bush camp's side fantastically well.

Of course CNN doesn't tell people that her job is to defend and explain the Republican side, but it's what she does best.

If you remember, Cindy Crowley was assigned to the Bush campaign, and she found him so "charming", which, at that point, she lost all credibility. Since that time, she has become a useless mouthpiece and she does a HUGE (for Tena) disservice to CNN on all levels. She needs to STFU.

I wrote to Anderson Cooper since it is his show. Writing Cindy will not help. Here is the link:

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?10

thanks for the link. I made a comment too.

:)

Yes! She was incredibly biased toward GWB in 2000. I can only assume that he had a special nickname for her.

user-pic

I watched it, wasn't terribly surprised, then watched Anderson Cooper, and wasn't terribly surprised, either.

My take was that Crowley and Cooper are angling for interviews with Palin, so they're trying to toe the McCain line.

In other words, in the race for ratings, they've sold their souls, again.

The most trusted name in news, indeed.

Crowley, in particular, was nauseating. People? E-mail CNN, and express, politely, your disbelief at the farce that Crowley put on last night. When Campbell Brown becomes the hard hitting member of the "most trusted name in news", the "no bull" network, you've got serious credibility problems about to happen.

But hey, no worries CNN. It's not like there's no other show on at 8 PM that addresses politics, is there?

Email link right above your posting. I am encouraging emailing Anderson since his ego doesn't like to take the hits, and he might pay more attention.

user-pic

Just did. Thanks for the link Amelie.

Keith Olbermann, followed by Rachael Maddow on MSNBC. I know, I know home of Joe and that crowd. These two...They tell it like it is...

user-pic
I know home of Joe and that crowd.

Speaking of which, they were doing the exact same thing this morning about McCain and Obama. They were discussing how loathsome McCain's ad were and how McCain had sold his soul -- only to turn around and equate it to Obama's ads as being "out of context". This kind of equivocation is beyond ridiculous.

Sarah Palin is thinner and is in better shape than Hillary. Therefore, according to the "meoww" contingent of progressive women thinkers on this thread - Sarah Palin is more credible when speaking about political matters.

Give me an effin' break!

user-pic

Put a sock in it, troll. The discussion was about a morbidly obese "reporter", not a discussion about equating thinness with credibility.

Wrong. It was about how Crowley has no credibility because she's obese. Karl Rove would be proud of your efforts to spin the discussion, 'bot.

I'm concerned that the attempt by the MSM to remain fair and balanced causes them to glaze over the obvious that has been occuring recently with the unadulterated BS coming out of the Repubs.
The MSM is supposed to be the ref and the line that has been crossed (ask Karl Rove) demands they pull the whistles out of their pockets and call them on their fouls. CNN especially has become painful to watch there has been a clear distinction in the level of BS flowing downhill to one side and when the media ignores it don't they then become complicit?
It's time they became journalists and take some responsability.

user-pic

Tradition media reports that Republicans claim the earth is flat. Some Democrats disagree.

That's what "the most trusted name in news" has devolved into.

Oh, "I don't like taking advice from someone who is morbidly obese" (reason for such obesity not important) - doesn't address acceptance of someone's credibility in any way . . .

Sorry, I stand corrected.

And, CT Voter - My goal in life is to someday be as stunningly insightful and polite as you think you must be.

It isn't her appearance, frankly, we should be above that. She is very biased since the 2000 / Bush as a campaign reporter that travelled with him. She has never found her unbiased grounding since then.

user-pic
And, CT Voter - My goal in life is to someday be as stunningly insightful and polite as you think you must be.

Good for you, colowpowpow! It's important to set goals for yourself.

Alright, truce, CT Voter. Sorry for the gut reaction to your attack on me. I actually usually enjoy your posts.

However, when you come out of the box calling me a name and telling me to keep my opinion to myself in the first sentence - it reminds me of a certain "f" personal noun, and it ain't "freethinker."

user-pic

Hmmmm. I guess I seem to remember a colonpowwow from back in the primary days who was remarkably negative. But perhaps that was a different colonpowwow.

This is what Rove was really after: to equate Obama's ads with McCain's. Now the MSM are comparing to two on equal footing, which de-legitimizes Obama's which are more factual and legitimizes McCain's which are outright lies.

Why have no Democrats adopted the strategy that George Herbert Walker Puking Bush adopted, in his presidential campaign?

Don't just go negative on your opponent... pick an "unfriendly" journalist, agree to a formal and cordial sit-down, then personally and shockingly break his kneecaps (Dan Rather).

That one was a total setup, but to this day, the MSM acts as if it wasn't. It worked. It not only made Rather a pinata of the right, but the CW that he was some sort of "biased liberal" eventually led to his DISMISSAL, after 400 years of being an American news icon.

But at the time, it effectively backed-off the meida on Bush I, when it came to Iran-Contra. A president got away with being a material witness to (and probable participant in) treason. Nice, Karl.

Obama needs to get on camera live with a talking head... I nominate literally anyone from CNN... and take a virtual baseball bat to the side of his or her head. Refer to him or her as "THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA" who "LIES!"

I know. Never happen. Needs to. Works. Q.E.D.

user-pic

The O'Reilly interview doesn't count? Oddly enough I've heard very little about how that went. Maybe I just frequent the wrong Intertubes haunts.

CT Voter says, "I seem to remember a colonpowwow from back in the primary days who was remarkably negative. But perhaps that was a different colonpowwow."

Yes, that was the colonpowwow who took offense at one's political opponents who resort to lying to discredit a good candidate, you know:

She and her husband are racists. (Never mind their career voting records).

She's corrupt and in the pocket of special interests. (Political donations from Lobbyists = BAD! - Political donations from those who HIRE and use lobbyists = FINE and DANDY.

Any show of emotion from her is calculated and phony. (What did her opponent's campaign spokesman claim was the reason for her tearing up a bit before NH?)

That colonpowwow is gone and he's enjoying himself watching many of those same liars call "Liar!" now on the Republican ticket.

That's funny. The Colonpowow I remember used to frequently tell us that she'd enthusiastically be voting and working for Obama if, by some miracle, he won the nomination.

Unfortunately I've begun to think that the McCain campaign has effectively pulled it off... they've convinced "mainstream" and low-informatin voters that the "Liberal Media" are all in the tank for Obama - and so McCain & Palin Lie and can continue to lie because the only people who can call then on the Lies are the Obama Campaign and the Liberal Media, who (by their having been defined on conservative terms as biased against their candidate) have no standing to object or call foul anymore....

They've played the Refs and it appears to be working.

Now you have McCain defining "fundamentals" as "the workers" and trying to steal populism along with "change" - Next thing you know they'll blame the downturn on fear of a Liberal Presidency (bet on it).

Anything at all to keep the conversation AWAY from themselves and GOP policies...

And it seems to be working...

user-pic

It has been working. But they McSlime campaign has come right out and said they are basically ignoring the "media filter" (telling use of the Bush term). Put it another way, the McSlime campaign are throwing down the gauntlet to these guys and saying "You just don't that much matter anymore so who cares what you say. We'll lie as much as we please and what are you going to do about it?"

I think that claim is 100% accurate as far as the hardcore base--the Palinauts--is concerned. But I think they're pretty far out over their skis as far as the rest of the electorate is concerned, particularly genuine Independents. I think abandoning John's traditional constituency--the press--is pretty damned dangerous for them. I think they may genuinely be underestimating how much they've been propped up by the tire-swingers.

user-pic

The problem the CorpMedia journos like CC face is that, when the truth absolutely favors one side over the other, accuracy in reporting looks like--can be claimed to be or made to look like--advocacy. So faced with the choice between "advocacy" and accuracy, they sacrifice accuracy. Sometimes in utter desperation, as here. The cognitive dissonance threshold is higher for some than others, though, and a quite surprising number, given the record of the last 8-16 years, have started breaking through it. This is less to the credit of the CorpMedia journos than to the fact of just how bad the lying is.

this is all just a symptom of a problem deeply entrenched in the fabric of our culture called white privelege.....maybe it can help educate some folks who don't understand the concept of white privelege.....which is the result of over 200 years of white supremacy being legally enforced as the law of the land.....(if you assume the country was founded in 1776)....this is what many people of color feel is inherent in the very fabric of our society, and why it boggles our mind that whites can't see the double standard for themselves...although to the reader's of this site's credit it appears that many of you do....


This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise
9/13/08

For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin' redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.

White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a "light" burden.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.

White privilege is, in short, the problem.

user-pic

What I found interesting is that Crowley's examples of Obama's sins were all quotes taken straight from the mouth of John McCain. He said those things.

"Taken out of context" is a phrase that means "I said it, but I didn't mean it." Just because McCain said the fundamentals of the economy are strong, that's unfair to quote him because it's "taken out of context."

John McCain did say that middle class starts at $5 million. It didn't sound like on of his famous jokes. And why would you joke abut a thing like that? He did say he was okay with being in Iraq for 50 years. You can add context to make that less offensive, but he said it.

It's pretty standard in politics that if you say something stupid, you don't get to take it back. If McCain wants to claim that these quotes were taken out of context and don't reflect what he stands for now, then I don't want to hear another Republican quote "guns and bitterness" ever again.

What did Candy have to say in '04 about the Swift Boat ads?

user-pic

Folks, it's all about making sure you maintain your contacts. I'm sure Candy saw how Brown was treated several weeks ago, which resulted in CNN being punished; McCain canceled a scheduled interview.

She would be worthless to CNN if McCain's campaign people didn't return calls or suddenly she was denied access to McCain.

Her "I not going to judge Obama" bashing was nothing more than making sure she looked good with McCain, not whether she was reporting useful information to CNN's viewers.

user-pic

I saw this, and it ain't like that.

It was Lou Dobbs asking her leading questions. It was all she could do to keep from laughing in his face. It was Dobbs pushing to get the "both sides do it" meme.

Why all the hubub?

CNN has no capacity to actually report anything...

That network and that "reporter" are just more opinion shills masquerading as a sources of journalism.

One might as well ask Rove for an honest opinion.

Candy Crowley has no capacity of determining what actually constitutes a fact.

Follow this thread and watch in awe as we stop talking about McCain's lies and turn instead to the weight problem of a CNN talking head. You people deserve whatever comes to you. Seriously.

I saw Candy last night, and immediately thought the same thing.

SNL recognized this unwillingness of the press to call a spade a spade as well.

Fake Hillary's last meaningful statement in the now famous Clinton/Palin skit....

"If the media won't grow a pair. I'll lend you mine."

I stopped listening to anything Crowley said when she groaned about how elitist (I don't remember the synonym she used) John Kerry was for ordering green tea in a restaurant. She obviously doesn't care enough about health issues to know that green tea is a recommended beverage for men who have been treated for prostate cancer, so she mocked his choice because "regular" people would never order green tea and "regular" people wouldn't even know what green tea is and "regular" people have a problem with snobs like John Kerry coming into their town and asking for green tea.

It's her way. People who don't chow down like "regular" people don't deserve to be president, and she equates her personal dietary preferences to "regular" -- you won't catch Candy ordering green tea when there's a milkshake around.

Some time during the last 28 years journalism became a four letter word. Now everyone who isn't on Faux News is afraid to point out facts, and inconsistencies.

Neutering used to be a procedure that was only done on canines.

Unfortunately, natural selection is slow, so people who mock those who eat healthy and avoid obesity will get away with it for a while, but eventually, those predisposed to such fatitude and attitude will die out.

user-pic

As a rather short man, I am not prone to disparaging others on the basis of appearance...I've spent a lifetime being pre-judged (I noticed that while a movie like Shrek, which I enjoyed, went out of its way to avoid offending the over-weight, it certainly made a lot of "short" jokes) because I am no taller than Muggsy Bogues or Richard Dreyfuss.

Bot Ms. Crowley tests my forbearance. I dislike her so much that I usually mute the TV whenever she comes on. Her weight doesn't help, but that is not what really offends me. She has an inner ugliness that is reflected in the way she contorts her face when she speaks, and her words reflect a soul that is shallow and mean, an intellect that is mediocre, and an arrogance all the more annoying because it is so unmerited.

I'd give a good deal to hear what Jack Cafferty, who seems to have his head screwed on right, actually thinks of her.

This is easy to understand. Candy acts this way because she is fat. No, I am not mocking her for being heavy. It is a psychological thing. Some group or person accepted her and she is sticking to them. It must have been the right-wing.

And she's sticking to them. And she won't change.

Saw the same but have seen it repeated same way by others as well..Anderson Cooper did it on his AC360 and WOlf and others do it repeatedly as well. Over at MSNBC as well as on CBS (sidekick to CNN anyway) NBC and ABC, all do so and claim it is an effort to prove THEY themselves are NOT partisanly slanted but really , ALL of 'em have let McC slide on by and only with McC contraryness and seeming contempt for the LIBERAL PRESS lump he has now fully engaged in, the media folks have taken some umbrage for even they realize that they have been "used" but now feel a bit "abused" and prehaps is their way of hitting McC back to remind him that THEY are and HAVE been HIS FRIEND in the worst and BEST of all his time. Think even NOW, they do NOT hit McCain NOR Palin half as hard as they have struck out at Obama. They had given CLinton more of a pass on much as well..but McC has learned lessons from the primary fights, and Clinton got away with having her camp tag the media and and LEGIT critics as being sexist and biased and in the bag for Obama and blah, blah, blah when really was NOT the case. FEW TO NIL of them are FAIR let aone balanced ...Hey, even Oberman has gone after Dems but due to it being a GOPERITED administration, that is a prime reason to highlight them at this point in the "errors of THEIR ways and means " , he is consistently slammed for being biased and BUT for Obama/lib stances even thou he has wailed against them as well but just now obviously well aware Obama is defintely the LESSOR of the evils offered up for us and who may just be albe to pull some modicum of salvation for "us" all out of AL this be it domestically or internationally regards.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address