GALLATIN CHIC! Seeking the counsel of other rough men, a working-stiff star went to Bozeman: // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, JUNE 6, 2008
THE ROAD TO PUR-DITION: Yes, were going to parse Todd Purdum. But we thought it should wait.
The background: As the hour began, Cooper and the rest of the gang had a stake-out going. They had been tolderroneously, of coursethat Senators Obama and Clinton were locked in a meeting at Clintons home. Cooper rat-a-tat-tatted the background. Sources now tell CNN that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, after one of the toughest primary campaigns in memory, are sitting down behind closed doors at Clinton's home in Washington, he said.
Needless to say, Pundit Excitement was building. Soon, Cooper was speculating about what may be true. And sure enough! Crowley was able to tell the panel about a gesture she thought shed discerned:
Huh! In fact, the meeting wasnt at Clintons home. (It had been held at Dianne Feinsteins crib.) But Crowley thought it was interesting that the meeting was held at the Clinton manseand she somehow thought that she had discerned what the choice of location meant! As always, the gesture which she thought shed spotted conformed to Basic Pundit Narratives. Indeed, its the modern pundits most basic skill: Even when her facts are wrong, she still knows how to interpret them:
Maybe we should have seen it coming. But Crowleyflatly wrong on her factsalready knew what the bungled fact meant! The solons were meeting at Clintons home? To Crowley, that meant that Obama was being gracious! The graciousness was fully intendedCrowley was sureby the Obama campaign!
Does hackwork ever get more hacksplendent? A bit later, Ed Rollins had a slightly more mundane idea:
In fairness, Cooper frequently corners the market on simple. Last night, though, he threw in wrong.
At any rate, this was truly a wondrous example of two Modern Pundit Imperatives. First: The pundit must interpret all pieces of trivia. And second: Her instant assessments of character must conform to Hard Pundit Corps Scripts.
How pathetic was Crowleys performance? Lets imagine that Coopers gang had somehow been right on its facts. Our question: If there had been a meeting at Clintons home, why would that make Obama gracious? Why wouldnt it make Clinton gracious? Why couldnt it mean that both solons were gracious? (More simply: Why would a journalist offer such judgments?) Its hard to know why major pundits offer such perfectly ludicrous thoughts. But everyone will understand this: Crowleys instant assessment of character conformed to long-standing narrative lines. In short, she was reading a novel again. Her facts were wrong, and her judgment was daft. But purity had been extended.
Final questions: Who was the source for Coopers false fact? And who was being gracious last night? It begins to look like Obamas campaign graciously misled a gang of reporters, graciously letting them fly to Chicago, although Obama wasnt on the plane. According to the New York Times, Robert Gibbs, the campaigns communications director, wasnt communicating real wellat least, not until after the plane landed in Chicago. Was something wrong with that conduct? For ourselves, were not sure we care. But Crowley is clearly a master of insight. Well wait for her to say what this means. Question: Do guild rules permit that?
Weisman is also a genius: At the Post, Jonathan Weisman can read the soul too. In this report, he correctly says where the meeting was held. But uh-oh! He is somehow able to tell us what the meeting now means! Weisman: Coming just before Clinton's expected departure from the race, it was seen as a reconciliation gesture to the senator from New York and her millions of disappointed supporters. The gesture is now one of reconciliationby Obama again! It was seen that way, Weisman wrote. Seen by whom? Such tools never tell.
IN RE UNITASAND CLINTON: In response to popular demand, heres the anecdote about Johnny Unitas which we mentioned yesterday. Why have candidates sometimes fought to the death? We suggested a basic fact: Theyre often very competitive people. Bill Bradley, for example, was a world-class athlete. Often, these people dont like to lose.
Which brings us back to Johnny U, in the last years of his career.
By now, Unitas was no longer a great NFL quarterback. He wasnt even especially goodand hed become a pain in the keister because he refused to accept or admit it. Fans were starting to get annoyed. Finally, a Balitmore sportscaster said:
Stop complaining about this! He gave you all those thrills through the years because he had supreme self-confidence. Have a little appreciation for the traits that got us all here. He won all those games because he's like this. The trait youre complaining about today is the trait you adored in the past.
While recommending this post by Digby, well offer a similar thought about Hillary Clinton. And about Bill Clinton. And about Robert Kennedy, Gene McCarthyHubert Humphrey.
Some people wanted a concession on Tuesday. Thats fine, but historically, people dont do that. By the way: It would be weird to spend all day Tuesday asking people to vote for youthen to show up at 8:30 PM and say, Im out of hereplease vote for the other guy. Whatever you think of Clintons speech, it would be somewhat odd to endorse on the night you ran in two primaries, trying to win. Historically, people dont do that.
(Theres one other point to consider here: For ourselves, we werent heart-broken by this campaigns outcomebut a great many Dem voters were. Historically, pols dont kick voters to the curb on the night their dream has died. They give them some time to adjust to what happened. But then, this is basic human relations, a subject the life-forms comprising our pundit corps tend to know little about.)
But lets get back to Johnny Unitas. And to Bill Bradley; and Jerry Brown; and Ted Kennedy and John McCain. And lets understand the kinds of competitors both the Clintons are.
Hillary Clinton has gotten this far because she doesnt quit real quickly. By the way: Whens the last time you saw a Big Dem who didnt quit at the very first chance? The roll-over for the October 02 war resolution vote was the most gruesome example. (Let get the resolution out of the way so we can talk about health care for a few weeks.) For our money, Clintons refusal to quit in the past few months makes her a remarkable role model. We hope other Dems will recall her approach and learn to roll over less quickly.
But as pundits bellow and wail, saying she hung on too long this week, well suggest you remember the tons of pure horse-sh*t this person has fought through over the years. Typically, she did this while receiving no help at all from the famous front-runners who whined and complained this week.
Hillary Clinton tends not to quit. Thats how she persisted through so much sh*t with so little help from career liberals. Just consider three events from 1999 alone:
In June, the cowards and clowns of your mainstream press corps invented that ludicrous Cubs-Yankees scandal. They called her every name in the book. But go ahead! Search the work of your favorite career liberal. Youll find him hiding under his desk, too frightened to complain about thisor about the pseudo-lies being invented about Candidate Gore.
In August, they dragged out Gennifer Flowers to inform us about Hillary Clintons murders. (And about the fact that shes the worlds biggest lesbo.) Yes, thats rightabout her murders! Flowers clowned about this for a half-hour on Hardballthen was rewarded with the full hour on Hannity. (Fox re-broadcast the program that weekend.) Go ahead! Search the work of your favorite career liberal. Give us the name of even one person who complained about this assault on everything decent people should hold dear.
But anyway, Hillary Clinton, like Gore, was the worlds biggest liarand shed committed a long string of murders! And not only that! She had been funny-looking in the 70s! In August, Bill Clinton made a major mistake; he described how he fell in love with his wife when they were students in law school. In response, Brit Hume posted a photo of a young Mrs. Clintona photo he plainly found unattractive. For the next several minutes, Humes pundit panel on Special Report staged the kind of discussion that was increasingly a stain on the cartel described as a press corps:
Apparently, the photo didnt evoke Pamela Anderson, so Humes all-male panel treated itself to a good solid laugh. After speculating about the Clintons marriage, they returned to that decades-old photo:
Go ahead! List this weeks nit-picking career liberal pundits. And then, spend your weekend searching for anyone who said one word about this.
What happened as the press corps war against both Clintons, then Gore, rolled on? Gene Lyons spoke up. Joe Conason spoke. Eric Boehlert arrived on the scene; Robert Parry got mad. But youll have to search under many desks to find other major-name pundits. Some played an active role in the warfare (Robinson); some simply kept their lovely traps shut (Dionne). Of course, theyre all full of front-running brilliance this week. This week, theyre founts of Group Wisdom.
Simple story: Both Clintons have fought through astounding misconduct, with almost no help from the career liberal firmament. For ourselves, we dont know why Bill Clinton lost the ability to keep his thoughts about the press to himself. But does anyone really not understand why he loathes the press corps so much? Do we really not understand the press corps role in this campaign? Bill Clinton made a giant personal blunder during his time in the White House. But this lunacy had been directed at both Clintons for years by the time that incident brokeby the time the press corps amazed itself by getting a scandal-claim right.
Why didnt Clinton endorse Tuesday night? Were not sure, but well take a guess: In part, becauseunlike the bulk of career liberal playersshe doesnt roll over and die real good. The career kids are whining, nit-picking, eye-rolling. And of course, they all ran off and hid in tall grass during the history-changing wars against both Clintons and Gore.
Final note: Robert Kennedy is being remembered this week. We recommend this piece by his daughter Kerry; she recalls a warm, loving fatherand two tree houses, in the same tree. But back in 1968, many High Liberals were criticizing Kennedy as the opportunist in that race. (Then, they proceeded to wring their hands about vile Hubert Humphrey.) In this piece, Harold Meyerson recalls the enmities inside the McCarthy camp against the man we now remember so warmly: [M]ost of us, despite our unspoken misgivings about McCarthy's staying in the race, were so entrenched in our loyalties and enmities that going over to Kennedy seemed beyond the pale.
But guess what? McCarthy, Kennedy and Humphrey were all decent peopleand none was the sun god returned to earth. That has also been true of the Major Dem hopefuls in this campaign. This week, Meyerson offered his recollection as a way of urging Clintons supporters to join with Obama. So typical! Its just like this cohort to withhold their wisdom until it will service their preference.
But then, these folk have always been like this. Go ahead! Look back and see how hard Meyerson fought during the wars against the Clintons and Gore. Hillary Clinton persisted through thatbut Meyerson? The one good thing about making that search is it wont take you real long.
GALLATIN CHIC: We mordantly chuckled on Tuesday night when Brian Williams began emoting to his friends, Tim and Chris. His revery was inspired by an interview with Montanas first-term senator, Jon Tester.
Well admit itwe dont like this stuff:
Of course, since Williams is paid $10 million per year, he could afford to pay the tab for that focus group he longs for. But we really dont like this sort of thing, where well-known Price Club shoppers like Williams explain who the real Americans are. We vacationed in Montana once ourselves (snow-storm on the Fourth of July, high in Glacier), and the state is full of very good people. But so is the state of New Jersey, where Williams developed his average-Joe ways. We really dont like it when these big hacks pimp us their patriot chic.
As someone said in 2004 (and were paraphrasing): People do red things in the blue states. And people in red states are blue.
Anyway, we thought this provided the perfect chance to semi-finish our series on Williams, the one we never quite completed (link below). Yes, he loves that tough working-class bunch in Montana. But for unknown reasons, he has decided not to rough it when forced to spend time in Manhattan. Dont look for Williams at the Y, or at the Wellesley Inn on Route 1! Reading Howard Kurtzs Reality Show, we softly chuckled at the news of his Gotham pad. So youll know, Jeffrey Immelt is CEO of GE. GE owns NBC News:
Good grief. We mordantly chuckledand almost pitied those GE CEOs.
We Irish! Matthews and Russert had stationed themselves on Nantucket, where they could keep a close eye on Jack Welch. Back in town, Williams decided to move right in the same building as Welchs successor! Please understand: For all we know, Jeffrey Immelt may be the worlds nicest man. But we think the public should know about the life-styles of their celebrity journalistsespecially since they go to such lengths to convince us theyre really quite earthy. (As you may recall, Kurtzs book is full of portraits of Williams average-shlub ways.)
Well take a guess: There may be a few fantastic patriots inside Immelts building too. Yes, Williams prefers a tougher, working-class bunch. But some decent people may even be found inside the precincts that Williams just hatesinside the building hes forced to frequent in the zip code he never discusses.
Theyd been trumped: Chris and Tim were plainly flummoxed by their pals Gallatin chic:
At long last, Big Russ chic had been trumped! Chris copied off Russerts paper.
VISIT OUR INCOMPARABLE ARCHIVES: For the first three parts of our Williams profile, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 12/14/07.