Skip to content

Month: March 2008

Fans Of PZ Myers, Take Note

by tristero

A quick heads up to science fans that
Olivia Judson has a wonderful online series on evolution called The Wild Side running at the NY Times.

I wonder why these columns are not appearing in the print edition of the Times. After all, the Grey Lady’s disgraceful flirtation with creationism dissipated after the Dover trial so there’s no political reason for it. Is it possible they think Dr. Judson’s column is just too brainy for the average Times reader? Some discussions I’ve had with friends who work there suggest so.

Put it this way: Anyone who can follow the complexities of the talented Amy Winehouse’s terrible struggle with substance abuse problems will find Dr. Judson’s discussion of mutations to the cis-regulatory elements in genes a snap. And if you’re willing and capable of understanding what an ERA is, you should have no trouble grokking the math by which she calculates the stride rate implied by a set of fossil footprints.

In any event, read her columns. When you’re not checking out Pharyngula, that is.

The Long March

by digby

Congratulations to Senator Clinton for winning Rhode Island and Ohio and congratulations to Senator Obama for winning Vermont. (Naturally, we have another damned nail biter and have to wait to find out what Texas had to say.)

It looks like the campaign will continue at least to Pennsylvania. (oh boy…) I assumed that Obama’s momentum was too strong to stop and that he would steamroll the rest of these contests without even breaking stride. I thought Ohio and Texas would validate that assumption and I was wrong. Apparently Democratic voters aren’t completely sure who they want for the nominee just yet. So we keep going.

There’s lots of chatter tonight that Florida and Michigan might get new primaries in June. The governor of Florida says he’d be willing. The way things are going, they may actually be necessary to allow one of the candidates to get to the magic number and be considered legitimate by the half of the party that didn’t vote for him or her.

.

Question

by digby

Is there any reason why the parties choose a nominee through this delegate system at all? Why don’t they just count up the votes and give it to the one who won the most?

I realize there was once a time when delegates and conventions were the way the big boys decided the nominee but I don’t actually get why, in the modern world, the party doesn’t just hold primary elections under the same rules everywhere and then count the votes and declare a winner. Why all these arcane rules that end up making democracy look like some kind of parlor game? I don’t think it’s good for the country. KISS.

.

Scandal Media 101

by digby

Over a year ago I took one of my periodic trips down memory lane and roughly outlines the press treatment of the Whitewater story. At the time, the Rezko story was just starting to bubble up out of Chicago, and I explained how these stories are used to degrade the reputations of Democrats:

The NY Times treated this story [Whitewater] like it was The Pentagon Papers. They legitimized its obfuscatory style of reporting and the confusion that resulted led to the naming of an independent counsel and finally to the partisan impeachment of a popular and successful president. Yet, it was obvious to observers that they were being led around by a cabal of rightwing hit men from very early on. They simply refused to see the story for what it was and instead validated their erroneous reporting with a continuous narrative stream of unproven implications that fed the toxic political environment — and that fed them in return.

I know this is all boring, arcane history now, but it’s important to note that we are seeing similar stuff happening already with respect to various “deals” that are being reported in the press about Harry Reid and John Edwards. So far they are thin, nonsensical “exposes” written by one man, John Soloman, formerly of the AP and now of the Washington Post. Soloman is known to be a lazy reporter who happily takes “tips” from the wingnut noise machine and faithfully regurgitates them. He holds a very important position at the paper that was second only to the Times in its eagerness to swallow Ken Starr’s spin whole.

We are also seeing some similar reporting begin to emerge on Obama, much of it generated by hometown political rivals, just as we saw in the Clinton years. Today the LA Times implies that Obama is exaggerating his activist past. A couple of weeks ago we saw a truly confusing report on a deal he made to buy some land from a supporter.

These are patented Whitewater-style “smell test” stories. They are based on complicated details that make the casual reader’s eyes glaze over and about which the subject has to issue long confusing explanations in return. They feature colorful and unsavory political characters in some way. They often happened in the past and they tend to be written in such a way as to say that even if they aren’t illegal they “look bad.” The underlying theme is hypocrisy because the subjects are portrayed as making a dishonest buck while pretending to represent the average working man. Oh, and they always feature a Democrat. Republicans are not subject to such scrutiny because a craven, opportunistic Republican isn’t “news.” (Neat trick huh?)

No single story will bring down a candidate because they have no substance to them. It’s the combined effect they are looking for to build a sense overall sleaziness. “Where there’s smoke there’s fire” right?

Keep that in mind as we watch this campaign unfold. These stories are very difficult to control once they get going. The MSM gasbags start “analyzing” the whole thing in terms of whether the subject of the inquiry is being forthcoming or if he’s “stonewalling” and it snowballs into armchair psychology and novelistic character studies. From what I gather of the Rezco matter so far, we can probably expect this to have the same trajectory. The press conference yesterday was deja vu all over again.

And by the way, is everyone aware that the judge in the case is a former member of both Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr’s Whitewater team? Something to keep our eyes on as the story progresses.

.

Math Is Hard

by dday

Just to quickly weigh in on this issue of press bias, I think we can all agree that the press is basically lazy. This, above all else, is what the Republicans have skillfully manipulated over the last decade. They know exactly how to get the media to chase the soccer ball. The laziness informs everything they do: the reliance on familiar narratives, ignoring data in favor of what they think they already know, repeating anything on an RNC press release, being easily bullied by political operatives, preferring not to discuss policy because it involves numbers and charts and all that confusing nonsense, et cetera.

For instance, it’s brilliant that MSNBC’s mannequin newsreader Contessa Brewer just got information on delegate counts from a 14 year-old reporter from Scholastic News (who knew her stuff, but of course it’s actually not really rocket science). And then she goes “Do you really care about this stuff?” Because if you do, young lady, you’ll never make it as a TV reporter!

.

The Myth of Security Primacy

by dday

Chris Bowers wrote a post yesterday about how this idea that the primary responsibility of any President is to provide for the common defense is reductionist and wrong. This is a Republican view of government, that its only concern is keeping people safe. And it’s damaging our global stature.

Our growing national obsession with security over justice, liberty and democracy is one of, if not the, clearest sign of the eroding stature of America in the geopolitical scene. Until about thirty years ago, America had pretty consistently been the most progressive great power, or super power, in the entire world. Now, due to the rise of conservatism in America, we have unfortunately lost that title to the European Union. It is a painful irony that most of Europe has become more democratic than America itself: in a sense, they have become more American than thou. Our loss of priorities in governance is one of the main reasons for this. In an American contest, “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” should matter just as much as life (remember Patrick Henry?). Justice, the general welfare and liberty should matter just as much as the common defense and domestic tranquility. We have really lost our way on this front, to the point that even saying your first priority as President or in Congress is anything but security is considered blasphemy. That is an incredibly frustrating, teeth-grinding loss of our national purpose, to such an extent that it has become an untouchable symptom in our national decline.

It’s not an insignificant point. We are seeing basic human rights and practically the entire code of justice stripped away because of a false notion that security must take primacy. Because of this, we see our legal system twisted into such a knot that a President can indemnify lawyers who act on his orders and lawyers can indemnify a President if they act under their orders. Because of this, members of the executive branch are the only citizens in the country who don’t have to answer to Congress, simply by virtue of being in the executive branch. Because of this, companies who break the law are supposed to be rewarded with our gratitude. This is of course about aggrandizing power, but the fig leaf for all of this is national security. The lie that our founders created this great democracy with the singular goal of keeping themselves and their charges safe, this unbreakable, untouchable lie, is like a cancer on the body politic.

And even if you cede this lie, even if you measure the current Administration based on this and only this standard, the only conclusion you can reach is that they are complete and utter failures. Not only is this White House totally irrelevant in promoting any kind of democracy promotion or peace-building strategy, but its policies, which have the nominal goal of keeping America safe, could literally not be more destabilizing and endangering for this country and our allies.

Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by (Fatah strongman Muhammad) Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America’s behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment.)

But the secret plan backfired, resulting in a further setback for American foreign policy under Bush. Instead of driving its enemies out of power, the U.S.-backed Fatah fighters inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of Gaza.

This is really about as unbelievable as you can get. Condi Rice and the national security apparatus was out to lunch by pushing for elections in the Palestinian territories, even though the indications were very strong that they would result in a Hamas victory. When the inevitable happened, they rejected Mahmoud Abbas’ efforts to forge a unity government and backed what amounted to a Fatah coup to overturn the election results, using a strongman with a keen talent for sodomizing opposition detainees with soda bottles. Bradrocket picks up the story from there.

Long story short: the US government decides to bolster Fatah by sending them a bunch of arms. Word of these shipments leaks to a Jordanian newspaper. All hell breaks loose, Hamas and Fatah start a civil war. Hamas wins the war and proceeds to use the American-supplied arms it confiscated from Fatah against Israel. Now, here’s the punchline:

“You know,” says [Khalid Jaberi, a commander with Fatah’s al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades], “since the takeover, we’ve been trying to enter the brains of Bush and Rice, to figure out their mentality. We can only conclude that having Hamas in control serves their overall strategy, because their policy was so crazy otherwise. […]

Now that it controls Gaza, Hamas has given free rein to militants intent on firing rockets into neighboring Israeli towns. “We are still developing our rockets; soon we shall hit the heart of Ashkelon at will,” says Jaberi, the al-Aqsa commander, referring to the Israeli city of 110,000 people 12 miles from Gaza’s border. “I assure you, the time is near when we will mount a big operation inside Israel, in Haifa or Tel Aviv.”

Indeed, this provoked a bloody Israeli incursion into Gaza that was eventually repelled, and Hamas is touting: those rockets they got from America through Fatah.

Fawzi Barhoum, a spokesman for Hamas in Gaza, said that like Hezbollah, Hamas had “gone from the stone to the rocket.”

“What we learned from Hezbollah,” he said, “is that resistance is a choice that can work.” […]

But more than 200 rockets have been fired at Israel since Wednesday, according to Israeli military officials, including at least 21 longer-range Katyusha-style rockets, which are manufactured outside Gaza and brought into the strip. Palestinians and Israelis see the use of those rockets as another illustration of the growing similarity between Hezbollah and Hamas, the militant Islamic organization that controls Gaza.

“We are very concerned that the role model for Hamas in Gaza is the Lebanese Hezbollah,” said Mark Regev, a spokesman for Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, when asked about parallels between this conflict and the one with Hezbollah.

A strategy based on “security” and “strength” has imperiled Israel. It happened to violate international law as well, but of course the myth of security primacy cancels that out.

This is standard American meddling abroad, we’ve seen this for decades, although the core competency seems to have, er, eroded a tad. But in a national security state, failures of this stripe are even more devastating. This is practically all we have left in a country where justice and human rights have been completely hollowed out. We’re governed by people who are contemptuous of government and indeed want to destroy it. They have no vision of government other than being a protective shield. And yet that shield is so cracked and withered and broken, the policies so dangerous and stupid, that it only hastens this American decline. And without a determined and concerted effort to make government somehow more vital than just a security blanket, there’s not going to be much of a chance to turn things around.

.

Well That Worked Out Well

by digby

Wiretap Compromise in Works

Parker, who said she hopes the House can take up the compromise legislation as early as this week, said a resolution has been delayed partly by the need for all members of the House Judiciary Committee to gain access to the letters and other relevant documents sent to the phone companies by the administration requesting their assistance. The House Democratic leadership demanded such access before they would contemplate immunity, and the administration granted full access last week. Parker spoke at a breakfast meeting sponsored by the American Bar Association yesterday. Kenneth Wainstein, assistant attorney general for national security, said at the same meeting that key issues surrounding the legislation had been hashed out in a “long and tedious” but “healthy” process, aimed at updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Yes, this has been a really “healthy” process. Kind of like a colonoscopy.

But this is my favorite part. They are pretending that the administration gave up something they wanted.

“This is not amnesty,” Wainstein said at the meeting. “This is targeted immunity” for companies who meet requirements specified in the Senate bill that include having received an attorney general’s certification that their assistance was determined to be lawful.

Well now, that’s entirely different, isn’t it?
So what happened?

A group of several dozen moderate to conservative House Democrats, known as “Blue Dogs,” has pushed Hoyer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to approve the Senate bill. Some aides on Capitol Hill were discussing the potential for the House passing the Senate version but breaking it into two votes: one on the portion of the bill that deals with revising FISA provisions and a second on the immunity measure. This procedural move would allow many Democrats to vote against immunity but still make its approval all but certain since almost every Republican and some centrist Democrats would vote in favor.

Here’s a test for you class. When is a majority not really a majority?

The Democrats believe they can fool the stupid rubes they represent by saying they aren’t culpable in this debacle because they voted against it! Yea! And we’re so stupid we’ll absolve them because we won’t figure out that the whole thing was rigged.

Greenwald says it all, here.

There’s very little point anymore in writing about how the Congressional Democratic leadership is complicit in all of the worst Bush abuses, or about how craven they are. All of that is far too documented and established at this point to be worth spending any time discussing. They were never going to take a stand against warrantless eavesdropping or the destruction of the rule of law via telecom amnesty for one simple reason: many of them don’t actually oppose those things, and many who claim to oppose them don’t actually care about any of it. That’s all a given. But what is somewhat baffling in all of this is just how politically stupid and self-destructive their behavior is.

It’s not all that baffling when you consider that the Democrats don’t have a liberal majority or even a real working majority unless they are willing to play hardball with procedure. Blue Dogs + Republicans makes a much more effective “bi-partisan” majority for Bush in these heady days of reconciliation anyway.

I stopped writing about this a month or so ago because it was just so obvious that this was going to happen and it was frustrating watching it come down. I see no evidence from the presidential campaigns that Bush abuses will be confronted in the next congress either. Indeed, I suspect this was the last gasp of outrage at the constitutional shredding of the Bush administration. Bush and Cheney and their henchmen will be busily covering their tracks and we will all make a fresh start on January 20th, 2009. Until they do it again, of course.

I’m sorry to be so depressing about all this, but I just see no evidence that Democrats care about this very much. The usurpation of democracy and the constitution doesn’t rate very high on their list of priorities, especially when they see the prospect of a Democratic president who they trust not to follow in Bush’s foo0tsteps.

But this was a principle worth fighting for no matter what. No president, Democrat or Republican, should be trusted with this kind of power. And even if you believe that no wonderful Democratic Prez could ever be so bad, what if John McCain wins? Does anyone seriously think he won’t use it?

Update: And yes, as soon as a Democrat becomes president the congress will rediscover its prerogatives.

.

Doomed To Repeat

by digby

HTML Mencken over at Sadly No smartly chides liberals for being unwilling to learn from the past, choosing instead to be born again in each new era and like mewling newborns make themselves vulnerable to the same old right wing shit over and over again:

In contrast, wingnuts never forget what they are about. They also know history; and since they get so little pushback from people who oh-so-can’t-be-bothered with all that fucking hippie bunk, they are free to revise or rewrite it. Like a coral reef, the calcified wingnut lies and bullshit build and build out of the sea of truth until the liberal ship is wrecked, and pirates murder the survivors. Every wingnut argument about Vietnam was stupid and wrong and immoral, and has been recycled about Iraq; so liberals, who just wanted to forget about that Vietnam shit, were susceptible to the lies. And now that Iraq has inevitably ‘gone’ Vietnam, by which I mean that it’s a pointless quagmire, clueless liberals wonder where, where are the wingnuts getting their surge-ey won’t-cut-and-run, beware-the-dolchstoss rhetoric from?!?! (The answer: from the archives, of course.) No, it never will end. If the next Dem president ever fucks someone other than his spouse, the same wingnutty Clenis-is-WMD arguments will recycle. When the next Dem president does anything for the poor, the same ’90s-wingnut Contract On America themes will recycle (which were recycled from Reaganite bullshit, itself recycled Goldwater rhetoric, which itself was recycled from 1930s anti-New Deal screeds, which were in turn recycled from anti-Progessive propaganda; you see the lack of imagination at work here — as St. Barry of Arizona said, his ideas were old). If the next Dem president does anything about the Israel-Palestine issue or stops American warmongering in the Middle East, the same late-’70s ZOMG-Jimmy-Carter-is-Neville-Chamberlain bullshit will recycle. Wingnuts regurgitate their arguments, and hope that if they do it enough, then what’s demonstrably false in them will be perceived as plausibly true. Wishing this phenomenon away won’t stop it. The only thing to do is to remember why these arguments were wrong in the first place.

Read the whole post. One of the main political lessons liberals continuously fail to absorb is that none of this is new, the world wasn’t created yesterday — and human nature is pretty predictable. Conservative argument keeps coming back, again and again and they succeed because liberals always want to “turn the page” and “let bygones be bygones” so we can “get things done.” It doesn’t work. They repeat these things like a mantra and they take on the patina of “truth” because well, everybody keeps saying it, it sounds familiar, it’s always “out there.” If liberals would resist the urge to forget everything they’ve learned about the right every few years they might be able to sustain the counterargument and have that take on the patina of truth. I’m pretty sure the last time that happened was Herbert Hoover.

.

Pressing Issues

by digby

The blogosphere is all abuzz about this outrageous Charlotte Allen piece in the WaPo yesterday saying women are dumb. It was over the top, but frankly I’m a little bit surprised that everyone is so shocked. It doesn’t seem much more obscene than the fare we’ve heard from the right for years. Moreover, it’s not even as derisive and demeaning as many things I’ve read on the liberal side of the blogosphere (or in my comment section) in the past few months. It’s bad, but it’s just par for the course as far as I can tell. The idea that sexism is politically incorrect is laughable.

What’s more interesting to me is how the press is dealing with the criticism they’ve gotten about the Clinton campaign in general. There’s substantial evidence of bias now being generated by respected pollsters and media observers. Some of it is obviously due to the inculcation of years of Clinton character assassination and a desire to see Hillary brought low to pay for her husband’s refusal to resign when the Village dictated that it be so. Al Gore suffered a similar fate. But that was expected, as was the “Clinton fatigue” that goes along with it. When the Village brands you with a delusional, flip-flopping, cackling Earthtone Letter on your forehead, it’s probably foolhardy to think you can beat them. Democrats only get one chance at the presidency (and Al and Hill were both damaged goods from the Clinton administration.) Republicans often run more than once — but then they aren’t so badly damaged by Republicans that they are rendered unelectable. (See this fascinating study for how well that works.)

But the media bias is far from simple Clinton fatigue. The sexism has been obvious to anyone who can see and those who insist to me that it doesn’t exist remind me of nothing so much as Bush supporters who repeatedly exhorted critics to believe Junior or believe their lyin’ eyes. I wasn’t crazy then and I’m not crazy now. I know what I see and what I see are news networks that think it’s fine and dandy to repeatedly invite someone who runs an anti-Clinton organization called C.U.N.T. to appear on television and that the paper of record prints something like this as if it’s some sort of meaningful analysis:

DOWD: In a webcast, prestidigitator Penn Jillette talks about a joke he has begun telling in his show. He thinks the thunderous reaction it gets from audiences shows that Hillary no longer has a shot. The joke goes: ”Obama is just creaming Hillary. You know, all these primaries, you know. And Hillary says it’s not fair, because they’re being held in February, and February is Black History Month. And unfortunately for Hillary, there’s no White Bitch Month.”

Reporters were nearly hysterical when Clinton responded aggressively to David Shuster’s “unseemly” remarks concerning her daughter and automatically assumed the lowest and basest motivations for her actions. This was in spite of the fact that the record shows that NBC has been relentlessly negative about Clinton for months. The Center for Media Affairs reported:

The gap in good press has widened since the New Hampshire primary, with Clinton dropping to 47% positive comments and Obama holding steady at 83% positive. NBC’s coverage has been the most critical of Clinton – nearly 2 to 1 negative (36% positive and to 64% negative)

Yet, when her campaign finally defended itself, it was derided by much of the lefty blogopshere and most of the mainstream media. One reader mused in an email that he didn’t understand what the fuss was about: after all nobody watches cable news.

Obviously, a lot of people get at least some of their news from cable and network news, and with the lopsided negative coverage against Clinton on NBC so obvious and ugly, it’s not hard to understand why her campaign would complain, particularly when it touched upon her daughter. After the Shuster flap had calmed down a bit, one journalist who’d been nearly apoplectic in his anger at Clinton over the incident, actually admitted in an email, “I don’t know why I get so pissed about these things,” which is one of the more insightful things I’ve read on the subject. I’m sure many of these reporters don’t understand their own irrationality — after all, they like women, have wives and mothers, maybe even are women. But we know that sexism doesn’t preclude any of that, don’t we? This is some primal stuff and clearly the culture has been deeply in denial.

Chris Bowers brings up an argument that I think is worth discussing further. He, like many of my readers over the past few months, makes the point that Clinton’s argument about having been up against the right wing machine rings hollow in the face of this hostile coverage and her reaction to it. It’s undoubtedly true that Clinton has a hard time with the media — always has. And she’s been vilified by an unhinged right wing for nearly two decades. Here’s just a little bit of what she’s put up with:

In order to understand Hillary and Bill, you must first understand the wildly dysfunctional Jerry Springer lifestyle that these 2 Yale-educated lawyers have chosen to live for 36 years. Once you understand that, then you will know why Hillary uses a secret police, private detectives (Anthony Pellicano, Jack Palladino) and criminal intimidation tactics to cover up all this chaos. The Clintons nearly murdered Gary Johnson, the neighbor of Gennifer Flowers, on 6-26-92 to keep a lid on that affair. Hillary did hire Jack Palladino to wage a terror campaign of witness tampering on Kathleen Willey in 1997-98. Hillary was screwing BOTH of her law partners Vince Foster and Webb Hubbell. I have every book every written on the Clintons and in my opinion Chelsea is the seed of Webb Hubbell, NOT Bill Clinton. Look at her big lips, nose and cheeks and you will see a strong resemblance between Webb (father) and Chelsea (daughter). [Check out post #207 for a Chelsea/Hubbell photo] Hillary is also a lesbian. Bill told Gennifer Flowers that Hillary “has probably eaten more pussy than I have.” [Flowers, p. 42, Passion and Betrayal] Hillary has had sex with many women.

I have received approximately 350 emails similar to that just in the last six months. It’s so commonplace, people don’t even mention it anymore. The fact that Clinton kept going, becoming a senator, then the first woman to ever win a presidential primary and continues to put herself out there in the face of that kind of psychopathic bile is a testament to her tenacity and commitment. Everybody says they want a fighter. Regardless of who you vote for, the woman deserves respect for refusing to back down from that lizard brain sludge.

And I would warn that if unfair and biased press coverage and right wing smears are now a disqualification for elected office, then I think we’d better think long and hard about whether the Democrats are going to be viable as a political party. Smears and bad press for Democrats is part of the package. I would also add that I thought it was understood to be part of the Netroots job to fight back media bias against all Democratic candidates, even if, as individuals, we were pulling for a particular one over the other. That did not happen and I think the Netroots failed miserably in one of its primary missions this time out.

So what happens now? Well, as I and many others predicted months ago, the media is beginning to feel pressure from Republicans (and perhaps their own professional embarrassment) and are starting to go negative on Senator Obama. Rather than examining their biases and adjusting their coverage to be more fair and dispassionate across the board, they will now “even things out” by being equally derisive, shallow and trivial toward his campaign. We’ve already seen the outlines of it in the last debate.

Glenn Greenwald writes today about the media’s opening gambit. It isn’t pretty:

[A]ccording to Kurtz, the media has given “scant attention” to the Obama/Farrakhan matter even though Obama has never had anything to do with Farrakhan, and “little pickup” to the fact that Obama met once (ten years ago) with two Chicago law professors who were Weather Underground members 40 years ago. But the most beloved media figure in decades, John McCain, this week openly embraces one of the most extreme haters in the country, says how “honored” and “proud” he is to have his endorsement, and that still hasn’t made Howie Kurtz’s column.

It’s absolutely true that Barack Obama, like any presidential candidate, ought to be subjected to rigorous media scrutiny. And it’s not unreasonable to suggest that because Obama has thus far been the opponent of the media’s most despised figure — Hillary Clinton — his policies, positions and legislative record have received less scrutiny than they ought to.

But as he made abundantly clear, scrutiny over substantive issues is not what Howard Kurtz is talking about. Those are the last things he’s interested in. 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.

And the Republicans have not yet really begun to engage. Aside from the big 527s we know will be out there impugning Obama’s patriotism, there are countless small wingnut welfare operations that have been waiting on the sidelines for eight years for their chance to make big money sliming a new Democratic administration. (Here’s a little reminder of the kind of thing we can expect. Here too. And here’s another reminder of how the mainstream media works hand in glove with these people.) The Muslim emails have already done damage and there will be more. (Look for terrorist ties or similar lies and smears next. It’s what the muslim rumors have prepared the ground for. )

If he wins the nomination, I am actually quite hopeful that Obama will continue to get somewhat better coverage than our recent candidates. Certainly my limited window into liberal journalism leads me to believe that he will have the support of the liberal political establishment. And that is, unquestionably, a huge asset, certainly compared to Clinton and Gore who were despised by the entire Village.

But if you’ve been observing the way the political and media establishment works for any period of time, you will not be too sanguine that it will make much difference. There are many wealthy, powerful interests out there that do not want a liberal Democrat to have the power to withdraw from Iraq or renegotiate trade deals or create universal health care and they will not make it easy for Obama to win. Those interests also run the media and a fund a fully functional right wing infrastructure that works to guide the election narrative.

Perhaps it won’t happen this time. It’s possible that the era of GOP smears is over or that Obama has personal characteristics that render them impotent and useless. But considering the egregiously sexist Clinton coverage in this campaign and the history of terrible coverage for Democratic presidential candidates since 1988, I think the Democrats would be foolish to assume that. The Republicans are very good at feeding these narratives to the press and the press has always shown itself very eager to gobble them up.

Greg Sargent has more on this. So does Crooks and Liars

.

The Truth About Bush Immunity Setting In

by dday

The Washington Post channels me by figuring out that telecom immunity is really Bush immunity.

Nearly 40 lawsuits, consolidated into five groups, are pending before a San Francisco judge. The various plaintiffs, a mix of nonprofit civil liberties advocates and private attorneys, are seeking to prove that the Bush administration engaged in illegal massive surveillance of Americans’ e-mails and phone calls after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and to show that major phone companies illegally aided the surveillance, including the disclosure of customers’ call records.

If the cases are allowed to proceed, plaintiffs’ attorneys say, the courts could review, in secret if necessary, any government authorizations for the surveillance. The process might also force the disclosure of government memos, contracts and other documents to a judge, outlining the legal reasoning behind the warrantless wiretapping program.

Perhaps most important, disclosures in the lawsuits could clarify the scope of the government’s surveillance and establish whether, as the plaintiffs allege, it involved the massive interception of purely domestic communications with the help of the nation’s largest providers: AT&T, Cingular Wireless, BellSouth, Sprint and MCI/Verizon. (Verizon Communications bought MCI in 2006.)

“I think the administration would be very loath for folks to realize that ordinary people were being surveilled,” said Kurt Opsahl, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the lead lawsuit, against AT&T.

It’s beyond clear that the entire brouhaha over FISA comes down to this: Bush wants to keep his lawbreaking secret, and shutting down the ability for courts to get to the bottom of it, sanctioned by the Congress, would do so. They don’t want to save the telecoms from financial ruin, they want to stop discovery. In fact, it’s very likely that the telecoms have already been indemnified. That’s why their main trade group opposes blanket amnesty.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) strongly opposes S. 2248, the “FISA Amendments Act of 2007,” as passed by the Senate on February 12, 2008. CCIA believes that this bill should not provide retroactive immunity to corporations that may have participated in violations of federal law. CCIA represents an industry that is called upon for cooperation and assistance in law enforcement. To act with speed in times of crisis, our industry needs clear rules, not vague promises that the U.S. Government can be relied upon to paper over Constitutional transgressions after the fact.

CCIA dismisses with contempt the manufactured hysteria that industry will not aid the United States Government when the law is clear. As a representative of industry, I find that suggestion insulting. To imply that our industry would refuse assistance under established law is an affront to the civic integrity of businesses that have consistently cooperated unquestioningly with legal requests for information. This also conflates the separate questions of blanket retroactive immunity for violations of law, and prospective immunity, the latter of which we strongly support.

This is about government cleaning up its own mess and sweeping it away. And the Democrats are eager to aid in that process, eliminating the possibility that Americans find out how much of their communications were gathered for surveillance, who requested the information, and who authorized the program. Glenn Greenwald gets this right:

The whole drama they started when they refused to pass the Senate bill by the deadline was never about anything substantive. They were just throwing a little petulant tantrum because they felt they were being treated unfairly again because they were given only a few days to comply with the President’s orders, when they wanted a couple of weeks to comply.

And their irritation wasn’t even directed at the President as much as it was at the Senate for being so unfair in waiting until the deadline to pass a FISA bill, thus giving the House only a small amount of time to capitulate in full (on CNN, Chairman Reyes refrained almost completely from criticizing the White House, instead reserving his criticism for the Senate over this procedural insult). The only “principle” the bulk of Congress believes in is the preservation of their own ceremonial customs. That’s all this drama was ever about […]

But what is somewhat baffling in all of this is just how politically stupid and self-destructive their behavior is. If the plan all along was to give Bush everything he wanted, as it obviously was, why not just do it at the beginning? Instead, they picked a very dramatic fight that received substantial media attention. They exposed their freshmen and other swing-district members to attack ads. They caused their base and their allies to spend substantial energy and resources defending them from these attacks.

And now, after picking this fight and letting it rage for weeks, they are going to do what they always do — just meekly give in to the President, yet again generating a tidal wave of headlines trumpeting how they bowed, surrendered, caved in, and lost to the President. They’re going to cast the appearance that they engaged this battle and once again got crushed, that they ran away in fear because of the fear-mongering ads that were run and the attacks from the President. They further demoralize their own base and increase the contempt in which their base justifiably holds them (if that’s possible). It’s almost as though they purposely picked the path that imposed on themselves all of the political costs with no benefits.

Because at the end of the day, they have a powerful interest in covering their own original sin: failing to speak up about rampant lawbreaking by the executive branch in the first place. Their first instinct in the face of this lawbreaking is to wonder how badly they will be blamed for it. And so they’d rather bury it so that they can feign outrage. Of course, the problem is exactly as Greenwald describes; the Democrats will ALWAYS be derided by Republicans for failing to protect America no matter what they do or what cover they provide. Why take such a stand for just a couple weeks if the eventual goal was going to be to immunize the President all along?

.