As the Daily Howler wrote on Friday, it was a week for peering inside the dead souls of the U.S. media elite. And the most revealing two paragraphs came from the corporate media's least self-aware disinfotainer, Chris Matthews. Jealousy probably underlay the MSNBC Hardballer stating, immediately after hearing of boss Tim Russert's death, that Russert was the targeted dupe for the 'scary nukes' issue that Bush/Cheney used to get us into Iraq. Here's Matthews on Thursday, June 13 (emphasis added):
One other thing, and may be tricky to say this and I'll say it. When we went to war with Iraq, he and I had a little discussion about that and this is where he is every man. This is where Tim is Mr. or Miss America or Mrs. America. He is us as a country. I said, why-how can you believe this war is justified? And he said, "The nuclear thing. If they have a bomb that they can use, we've got to deal with. We can't walk away from that."
And that to me was the essence of what was wrong with the whole case of the war. They knew the argument that would sell with Mr. America, with the regular guy, with the true American patriot. They used the argument that would sell, that would get us into that war. Tim was right on the nail. He was us, the American people. And that to me is something that has been coming in my head the last couple of hours when Tim and I had that conversation, that that was the thing that sold America. And the guys who wanted the war used that one thing that would sell the patriot in Tim Russert.
In sum, Cheney felt that Russert was the key guy he had to dupe, and it couldn't have been easier: 'TRUST ME TIM, SADDAM'S GOT NUKES!' That's all: no push back, no inquiry, End of F-cking Story. The Howler quotes Matthews and adds (emphasis by fairleft):
Matthews, of course, is describing a private discussion. There's no proof that this discussion occurred . . . But did Russert really get played, as embellishments led us to war in Iraq? You don't have to rely on Matthews. Who can forget the embarrassing exchange Russert had with Bill Moyers, just last year? Had Russert been duped by the war machine? Fairly plainly, Moyers was asking-and as he answered, Russert made one of the most embarrassing statements a big journalist ever has made:
I've known Tim Russert since I first spoke at the convention in 2004. He's somebody who, over time, I came to consider not only a journalist but a friend. There wasn't a better interviewer in TV, not a more thoughtful analyst of our politics, and he was also one of the finest men I knew. Somebody who cared about America, cared about the issues, cared about family. I am grief-stricken with the loss and my thoughts and prayers go out to his family. And I hope that, even though Tim is irreplaceable, that the standard that he set in his professional life and his family life are standards that we all carry with us in our own lives," said Barack Obama.
And here's McCain.
"I am very saddened by Tim Russert's sudden death. Cindy and I extend our thoughts and prayers to the Russert family as they cope with this shocking loss and remember the life and legacy of a loving father, husband and the preeminent political journalist of his generation. He was truly a great American who loved his family, his friends, his Buffalo Bills, and everything about politics and America. He was just a terrific guy. I was proud to call him a friend, and in the coming days, we will pay tribute to a life whose contributions to us all will long endure."
Those are both sweet messages, from politicians who consider Russert more than just the preeminent political journalist/interviewer of our time, but considered him their friend.
On cable news today, various pundits have mentioned with nostalgia Russert's interview and takedown of Ross Perot in 1992. It's an interesting moment to flashback to in mourning. Clearly Russert cut a huge hole in the American political scene, iconic to both the most powerful men in America and individual political junkies of both parties.
Join the book club for David Sirota's upcoming book, The Uprising, due out on 5/27.
The "controversy" over Barack Obama's "bitter" comments was a media creation from start to finish - a brouhaha manufactured by very wealthy reporters and pundits who do anything they can to ignore, reject or otherwise downplay the very real issue of inequality and economic class in America. Using MSNBC's Chris Matthews and "The Wire's" Jimmy McNulty, I show in my new newspaper column out today that the very media ideology that spins up these "controversies" has gone from subtle to brazen in the last few weeks - and that intensification is breeding, yes, bitterness.
On the main page of the website supporting the book, Schaller puts his case succinctly:
The South is no longer the "swing" region in American politics -- it has swung to the Republicans. Most of the South is beyond the Democrats' reach, and what remains is moving steadily into the Republican column. The twin effects of race and religion produce a socially conservative, electorally hostile environment for most Democratic candidates.
Spending valuable resources in Southern states is a dangerously self-destructive strategy that could serve to relegate Democrats to minority-party status for a generation. Political attitudes and demographic changes in other parts of the country are far more favorable to Democratic messages and messengers. The Midwest and Southwest are the nation's most competitive regions. There are opportunities to expand Democratic margins in the Mountain red states while consolidating control over the reliably blue northeastern and Pacific coast states. Before dreaming of forty nine state presidential landslides, the Democrats ought to first figure out how to win twenty-nine states. And that means capturing Arizona -- or even Alaska -- before targeting Alabama.
McCain may put Arizona out of reach for this electoral cycle, the maps show that neighboring states Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado are not. Obama's strength in the West is particularly embarrasing-not to mention debilitating-to McCain.
But it's also embarrasing to Obama, since it belies his earlier rationale in reaching out to religious conservatives, and his claims to be a mapchanger by drawing unprecedented numbers of blacks to the polls, and contesting Southern states Democrats otherwise would lose. It is not the religious conservatives dominating the South who have responded most to his calls, nor does he put more pressure on McCain there than Clinton does. His "unique" contribution is to do what Schaller mapped out as the natural thing for the Democratic Party to do, regardless of their nominee.
As I put it in a recent comment in the discussion of that diary:
When you have a rhetoric that says one thing, but a material reality that says another, it's always best to trust the material reality first, and seek to understand why that rhetoric works within that reality.
In this particular case, my explanation of why is simple...
I just got an e-mail from LCV, which just launched an incredibly cool campaign to push the media to focus more on climate change. Check out this incredible fact from their research:
We analyzed the transcripts from all the debates and Sunday interviews that these top reporters--Tim Russert, George Stephanopoulos, Wolf Blitzer, Bob Schieffer, and Chris Wallace--have hosted.
Even we were shocked by what we found:
Between the Sunday shows and debates, these five reporters have interviewed the candidates 126 times in 2007. They have asked the candidates 2,275 questions. In that time, the words "global warming" and "climate change" have only been mentioned in 3 questions. Three. All year. Even if you include global warming related questions such as fuel efficiency and oil subsidies, it is only 24. There have nearly been more presidential candidates this year then questions about global warming.
Now that is truly absurd. If Gore and virtually every scientist who has studied this are right, are even half-right, climate change will be the most catastrophic thing that has ever happened to the human race, and we don't have long to change things before we reach the point of no return. And none of these reporters is even asking about the issue? Insanity...
STATE BLOGS
The "controversy" over Barack Obama's "bitter" comments was a media creation from start to finish - a brouhaha manufactured by very wealthy reporters and pundits who do anything they can to ignore, reject or otherwise downplay the very real issue of inequality and economic class in America. Using MSNBC's Chris Matthews and "The Wire's" Jimmy McNulty, I show in