When vapid media figures like Kurtz complain that Barack Obama hasn't received the necessary "scrutiny," what they mean is that the real fun hasn't started yet -- they haven't been spewing all of the standard, entertaining, petty, personality-based smears from the right-wing sewers.
Mike Dukakis is an effete loser; Al Gore is a pompous, lying bore; John Kerry is an awkward, flip-flopping weakling; and Barack Obama is an America-hating, Terrorist-loving, angry radical racist coke-head. When Kurtz says he wants more "media scrutiny" of Obama, what he's really saying -- as today's column proves conclusively -- is: when are we going to start propagating the right-wing personality smears in earnest? What are we waiting for?
As Paul Krugman said today, quoting Bob Somerby: "Mr. Obama will be 'Dukakised': 'treated as an alien, unsettling presence." The same thing would happen to Hillary or any other Democratic candidate. It does in every national election.
The words "boo hoo" come to mind.
And, hey, none of you bullies better take Glenn's milk money this afternoon. He's had a hard day, what with being picked on and everything.
4 comments:
He was engaging in hyperbole somewhat, but he made some good points: Just about every single issue that Kurtz highlighted as things the media should focus on was of the petty, right-wing vitriol variety that is barely worthy of the tabloids, much less the mainstream media.
Okay wait-a-second, let's exmine these charges:
Mike Dukakis is an effete loser;
This one was the media's doing (and as I recall, Dukakis did the shoveling: he wore the stupid helmet, and flubbed the capital punishment question about his wife's hypothetical rape and murder). All the Republicans did was point the disastrous consequences of his furlough policy . This was a fair charge and a legitimate policy issue for debate.
Al Gore is a pompous, lying bore;
Oh come on! This one is just true! For God's sake, Gore is the one who showed up to each of 3 separate debates, sporting 3 completely different personalities. And I say this as someone who voted the man!
John Kerry is an awkward, flip-flopping weakling;
This one is also true "voted against it before he voted for it..." And it's also based on a legitimate policy question. And frankly, it's about character. I would bet my next 3 paychecks that in his heart of hearts, Kerry wanted to vote against the war authorization from the beginning, and that voted for it to advance his political career. If this is true, it is the most despicable betrayal of public trust imaginable. For all his faults and for good or ill, at least Bush seemed to believe going to war in Iraq was the right thing. And I opposed the war from the beginning.
and Barack Obama is an America-hating, Terrorist-loving, angry radical racist coke-head.
The jury is out on this one. For the record, HRC's people made the cokehead allegation, which I thought was unfair. The others could be Republican themes. I don't think McCain will go there, but his surrogates might. But if Obama does buy into the "America is an evil imperialist oppressor" meme , then it is a legitimate campaign issue, as ugly as it is. It is fair game to raise questions about the character and world-view of the person we are electing president. At the end of the day what Americans need to know is not whether the candidate is for or against mandates, or some other insipid, academic minutiae, but rather, what will be the candidates guiding principles in office? We have a right to know.
And of course McCain, who the MSM tells us is an elderly crank with a hair trigger fuse, a philanderer, an S&L crook, & a ethics hypocrite, has NEVER had to deal with crapola.
*insert the eye roll here*
It's all par for the course for BOTH parties. Bill Clinton had to deal with it, so did George H.W. Bush (also a philanderer we were told), and so did Reagan (the only one some in the press insinuated was an out and out rapist).
If Greenwalds pity party didn't come across as so hopelessly naive I'd cut him some slack.
Yeah, good point. The libs are so good at this game, and of distracting attention from it by accusing the Republicans of being "big meanies", it's easy to overlook their high-minded rhetoric: Anyone who is interested can look up how any number of Republican SC nominees were savaged. And of course, who can forget "General Betrayus", who isn't even a politician? Naturally, it's okay when the libs do it, because they mean well, and they are passionate and idealistic.
Post a Comment