THE ONGOING WORK OF A CRIMINAL CLASS! In effect, theyre a criminal class. We have to learn how to describe them: // link // print // previous // next //
MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2007
HAMSHER AND DIGBY GET IT RIGHT: The know-it-all class was in hog heaven, judging John and Elizabeth Edwards. At The Lake, Jane Hamsher hammered all-knowing Jay Carney. Later, Digby marveled at Joan Vennochis know-it-all stance in the Globe.
For ourselves, we liked Margaret Carlsons know-it-all twofer the best. (Be sure to read the whole thing.) Good old Margaret! She knew all about what the Edwardses should do. For a bonus, she even explained what Hillary Clinton should have done in the late 1990s. Needless to say, John Edwards and Clinton turn out to be a pair of cold, phony fakes.
THE ONGOING WORK OF A CRIMINAL CLASS: Remember the key point: They simply dont care. On Saturday, the SEIU had the good sense to sponsor a Democratic forum on health care. Seven White House candidates took part, including the current front-runners. Karen Tumulty capably hosted the forum; at Swampland, she outed the rest of her cohort. I suspected that my colleagues in the press filing center weren't entirely thrilled at spending a Saturday in Las Vegas this way, she wrote. And she said her suspicions were confirmed when she received this e-mail:
E-MAIL TO TUMULTY (3/24/07)Poor babies! They didnt want to write about health care! In a later post, Tumulty said that her e-mailer had been kidding. But for Democrats, theres a long, painful history here: They didnt want to write about health care back in October 1999, when Gore and Bradley debated the subject—so they wrote about Gores funny clothing instead. (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/7/06.) And they didnt want to write about health care in October 2000, when Gore challenged Bush about the Patients Bill of Rights—so they talked about how funny it sounded when Gore said Dingell-Norwood. (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 12/1/06.) In that years first—and crucial—Bush-Gore debate, the longest exchange concerned the way Bush misstated his own prescription drug plan. But the press corps didnt want to talk about that, so they talked about Gores alleged sighing.
The history here is fairly clear; as a general matter, these people never want to write about health care—or about any serious topic. This time, they accessed their latest release as they fled, screaming, from their own inner tedium. Right at Swampland, Ana Marie Cox had already posted these musings:
COX (3/24/07): Shorter Hillary: YOU CAN TELL I CARE ABOUT HEALTH CARE BECAUSE I AM SHOUTING ALL THE TIME.No, you cant get dumber than that. But inane comments about Clintons manner of speaking are now the rage with this fatuous press corps. She drawls! No, she shouts! No, her voice is too screechy! Avoidance of substance has long been their dream. Cox employed the latest way to avoid.
What did Clinton say about health care? Absent-mindedly, Cox didnt say; instead, she complained that Clinton talked too loud and walked around too much. For content, she offered a bit of brainless snark about that eight-year timetable. But then, this has been the norm for a very long time when serious Dems try to talk about health care. Cox is more potty-mouthed than some of her peers—but like them, she is eerily DUMB.
Lets explain what youre getting when youre handed such insulting blather. Youre surveying the work of a criminal class—a group of overpaid, store-bought clowns who are paid their fantastic salaries precisely because theyre reliably fatuous. When Time hired Cox to head its web site, the magazine knew what it was getting; it was getting the most fatuous person who has emerged in press circles in recent years—a dirty girl who proved her good faith by endlessly talking about butt-fucking and her own luscious body during her Wonkette tenure. Corporate owners hire the Coxes because theyre such fools—and routinely, they get what theyve paid for.
Why dont these ciphers care about health care? Duh! Because they already have it! Margaret Carlson explained it long ago, in that remarkable exchange with Don Imus. For them, this is fun, entertainment and sport. For you, theyre a criminal enterprise.
APPLE SAW COX FROM AFAR: For the record, when Elizabeth Dole walked around during her speech at the 1996 GOP convention, the mainstream press corps hailed her as a genius of mass communication. John Starr summarized the stupid blather in the Arkansas Democratic-Gazette:
STARR (8/20/06): By far the most outstanding performance at the 1996 Republican National Convention was that of Elizabeth Dole, wife of the presidential nominee.At the New York Times, Johnny Apple knew who would pay the price for this. Hillary Rodham Clinton is perhaps in the most difficult position of all, he wrote on August 25, because whatever she may do will inevitably be compared with the smash performance by Elizabeth Hanford Dole in her Oprah Winfrey role in San Diego.
Sure enough! Eleven years later, Clinton walked around a bit—and Cox told us how damn-fool stupid it was. By the way: What did Clinton say about health care? Cox didnt say—and doesnt care. She was hired for playing the dirty girl—and for her steaming mindlessness.
A DOMESTIC CRIMINAL CLASS ON DISPLAY: Then too, you had the disgraceful Gloria Borger, clowning hard—but from her cohorts script—on this weekends Chris Matthews Show. She was asked the usual, worthless question RE Gore. Try to believe where she took it:
MATTHEWS (3/25/07): Once again, we put it to the Matthews Meter. If Hillary Clinton falters by this fall—this coming fall—will Gore get in?...Glo, you say he goes.What did Gore say about global warming? As usual, Borger stuck to his clothes. By the way, Gores tie was solid blue; there was absolutely nothing different about it. For all that you can tell from the tape, it may have been the exact same tie he wore at the first Bush-Gore debate. But so what? Borger was working off a script. Shes a clown and a fake—a propagandist.
And yes, the uproarious laughter was also fake. Anyone who has watched this program over the years can see how its pundits have now been trained. In particular, ODonnell has been remade by NBC in the past year (warmed up); she now laughs uproariously at any comment that is even mildly intended as humor. Anyone who has watched her over the years know this is not her natural conduct. But NBC is paying her millions—and shes been told what to say, how to act.
Matthews is appallingly dishonest, but yesterdays program really stood out for its ugly, scripted quality. For starters, heres where the always gruesome Borger went as she her scripted remarks continued:
BORGER (continuing directly): I'm not one of you—the Democrats, most of them, welcomed him like the returning prophet—Its hard to know where to begin with this ugly conduct. But since Borger wasnt present at the Gore hearing—and we were—lets start with Sundays mendacious claims about Clintons eyes and smile.
As usual, Matthews was pimping his standard hate speech about what a cold, evil bitch Clinton is. Clinton had dead peoples eyes, he said. She gave Gore the coldest look—no phony smile, nothing. (This continued a claim he first made on Wednesdays Hardball. Text below.) But readers, we were present at the Gore senate hearing, and we were struck by the warmth of the smile Clinton flashed at Gore and his wife when she came into the hearing. (The hearing had started when she arrived.) Of course, if you werent present—and Borger and Matthews werent—youd have no way to know if this happened. But so what? Borger and Matthews belong to a millionaire criminal class. Simply put, theyll lie to you and to your neighbors as simply as normal folk breathe.
Meanwhile, note where Borger took it next—to an imaginary conversation in which Clinton says something about inventing the Internet! This presaged with an ugly comment from Times Rick Stengel as the mindless chatter continued—after Matthews embarrassed himself with the requisite question about Gores weight:
MATTHEWS: Would he get in [the presidential race] with Hillary leading?This groups capacity for projection is astounding. After all, it wasnt the Clintons who said Gore invented the Internet; it was them, the mainstream press corps! And it wasnt the Clintons who beat Gore in Campaign 2000; it was them, the mainstream press corps, with their nasty, two-year War Against Gore—the war good careerists can never acknowledge. But so what? On Sunday, they imagined Clinton mocking Gore about the Net—and they said that Gore doesnt want to run for the White House because the Clintons will play so dirty! But then, these are nasty, evil people. They exist to destroy your democracy. They are paid to dismantle your lives.
Read this programs entire transcript and marvel at this cohorts conduct. Needless to say, Matthews continues his endless insults against Clinton, calling her Madame DeFarge again. (Click here for an explication by Media Matters—from April 2005!) But especially note the way this group spins the U.S. attorney dispute. Why bother having a five-member panel? In the discussion of this matter, all five pundits echo the current GOP talking-points. They picture the Democrats pursuing this matter for partisan reasons alone; no other possible motive is mentioned. And they all agree that the Dems should be careful about taking this witch-hunt too far.
This is a nasty, criminal class. Theyre determined to take apart your democracy. (Make no mistake: Jack Welch knew what he was getting when he hired his disordered boy.) And no, they dont care about health care or warming. They already have excellent health care. Regarding warming, if their grandchildren die in the storm, they dont care. In truth, their kind never will.
CLINTON AT THE HEARING: Lets say it again: Matthews and Borger werent present at the Gore senate hearing. We were—and we were struck by the smile Clinton shot Gore as she slid into her chair.
No, Matthews wasnt there to see it—but he and his house boy, David Schuster, were ready to start dissembling that evening. We dont think Schuster was present either—but he knew what his master wanted, and that evening, he started to dish it:
SHUSTER (3/21/07): It was of course great political theater today, Chris....Really—too funny! Exhibit A for Clintons hatred was the fact that she talked about Gores ideas! And just like that, a cold, nasty man launched his typical hate speech:
MATTHEWS (continuing directly): Look at those eyes! Look at the cold eyes that shes giving him, look at that cold look!We were back to the bath-tub ring, Matthews favorite real-time insult! (During Campaign 2000, he called Gore the bath-tub ring more than 40 times.) The following night, this disordered man was wondering about Gore once again:
MATTHEWS (3/22/07): Welcome back to Hardball. We`re joined now by Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and Michael Feldman, a former adviser to Al Gore. By the way, is Al Gore sharpening up his political blade now? Hes up there on the Hill. Is he going to lose some weight and make his move, or—As a matter of fact, Gore only ran twice. Matthews may have been thinking of the number of times he has lied about Gore in the past.
One final point about Wednesdays hearing. Yes, Clinton smiled warmly at Gore as she entered. But we noticed something else at that hearing; we noticed that Clinton paid Gore the compliment of asking excellent, detailed questions about his ideas. (She clearly did the days best questioning.) Below, we offer the full transcript of the Clinton-Gore Q-and-As.
But first, note how cold Clinton was at the start. She was so cold to Gore—the man she hates—that she suggested bringing him back for further sessions before the committee:
BARBARA BOXER (3/21/07): Senator Clinton, you've been very patient. Thanks you.Huh! Clinton was so cold to Gore (who she hates, of course) that she suggested bringing him back for more sessions! As youll see below, she restated this suggestion as she finished her questions. Schuster, of course, forgot to say this. Most likely, he didnt know. He did know the shape of His Master's script. Like a puppy, he arfed it out faithfully.
The full Q-and-A, as Clinton asked Gore the best questions of the hearing:
CLINTON (continuing directly): I wanted to just ask for some further clarification on a couple of your proposals, which I find extremely intriguing. The first—to follow up on Senator Alexander, if there were a carbon-based tax, would there be a need for an economy-wide cap and trade system?