So now the only question is: How will the Usual Suspects try to spin this so that it’s a negative for Clinton and/or Obama?
PAD
So now the only question is: How will the Usual Suspects try to spin this so that it’s a negative for Clinton and/or Obama?
PAD
• 
Susan the Dog Owner said:
If there aren’t anymore Crunchberries, what will I pick out of the cereal to use as dog treats? I won’t share my Lucky Charms – dogs don’t care about magically delicious, and dogs shouldn’t eat CocoPuffs. And the last thing puppies need is the fiber in Grape Nuts.
Let me address this matter as my other dream job– advice columnist. (I actually do this for an unpaid basis. It’s called Ask a Stupid Question…)
If you are seriously feeding your dog Crunch berries– if I had more than a first name and last initial to go on– I’d have to report you to the ASPCA. The rule tends to be as follows: if it is cruel to a human it is cruel to a dog. My dogs, who passed away a month ago, wouldn’t go near crunch berries. They loved Cocoa Puffs and the late lemented Waffle Crisp. As for the the ideal choice of breakfast snacks for dogs, I recommend the yellow Fruit Loops or in this weather a little bit of Quaker Oatmeal?
And don’t tell me I’m killing my dog’s taste buds – anyone who loves Litter Box Crunch that much has no taste buds to start with.
I won’t say its killing their taste buds. I might say brain, kidneys, liver, appendix and spleen but not tastebuds.
The more important Obama act that should be discussed more is the fact that within a day of saying that (in summary) lobbyists wouldn’t be part of his administration, we were already hearing talk of a waiver for an appointee. Did his team not properly vet his own appointments before they drafted the policy, or was Obama really going off the cuff in his announcement?
Now there’s talk that George Mitchell may also need a waiver, as his firm lobbied for Dubai. I don’t think it’s a matter of either Obama going off the cuff or improper vetting, it’s just that the no lobbyists rule was ALWAYS not meant to be taken seriously. It sounds good, that’s all. It’s like when a new congress comes in and they always say “This will be the most ethical congress, ever!” you know they probably don’t want you to hold them to it. Charles Rangel is being investigated for ethics violations and they just replaced the panel that was supposed to have issued a report weeks ago and among the new members is some guy who took 20,000 dollars from…charles rangel! Is anyone dumb enough to be surprised?
Dustin Westfall; The more important Obama act that should be discussed more is the fact that within a day of saying that (in summary) lobbyists wouldn’t be part of his administration, we were already hearing talk of a waiver for an appointee. Did his team not properly vet his own appointments before they drafted the policy, or was Obama really going off the cuff in his announcement?
Neither. Obama knew about the guy’s history when he signed the order, so it wasn’t an issue of insufficent vetting. They’ve been talking about these kinds of changes for awhile, so the executive order wasn’t a sudden thing.
It pretty much is exactly what it seems to be. Obama believes these rules are worth doing for most cases, but he also believes there are a few cases where the person is good enough to make an exception to the rule.
There’s at least one area where I’m glad there is a press bias; we will be spared the same attention to Obama accidentally trying to enter a building through a window that Bush received from trying to exit a room through a locked door: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/01/28/2009-01-28_hey_bam_thats_not_the_door.html
“Personally I think the ones who should be complaining are the Wiccans for being left out.”
:LMAO:
personaLLy, I’m a penguin. and penguins is practically chickens.
Bill Mulligan: “There’s at least one area where I’m glad there is a press bias; we will be spared the same attention to Obama accidentally trying to enter a building through a window that Bush received from trying to exit a room through a locked door…”
Actually, I just saw this covered on CNN a few hours ago. Obama’s goof is getting more than its fair share of coverage.
I would think that this actually would get more play than Bush’s mistake…
I would think that this actually would get more play than Bush’s mistake…
I don’t know…google Bush and “locked door” and get 64,700 hits and most of the first few pages are about the incident in question. Unfortunately I can’t come up with a good combination of words for Obama’s little mistake; Obama and window gives about 12 million hits but only 1 of the top 10 is about the incident so the actual number referring to it is probably very tiny. I guess we”ll see.
“So right off the bat you have to wonder about how things are defined.”
Correct.
I’ve seen studies that show that while most American journalists are to the left of the average American in social issues, they are actually to the right of the average American in economic issues (and perhaps foreign policy issues too, I don’t remember).
When liberals and conservatives both complain that the media favors the other side, they may both be right.
“I don’t know…google Bush and “locked door” and get 64,700 hits and most of the first few pages are about the incident in question.”
And the number of pages couldn’t have anything to do with how long ago that event happened? Do you think there were over 60,000 pages about it a couple days after?
Re “First, do no harm”:
The phrase is indeed Hippocratic, but appears in the Oath in somewhat different form from the original incidence, and turns up or not these days depending on who did the translation or paraphrase. (There are about a million of these: I’ve done it myself, in Doctor’s Orders..) The original line appears in Hippocrates’ great textbook Epidemics:
“As regards disease, make a habit of two approaches — to help, or at least to do no harm.”
The Greek phrase got translated into Latin (by I think Galen) as Primum non nocere. Galen put the phrase in a strong imperative form, so as to imply, “The way to help somebody is first not to hurt them!“
One of those common-sense things. Too bad common sense isn’t.
obama locked out window whitehouse
Results 1 – 10 of about 87,900 for obama locked out window whitehouse. (0.36 seconds)
Scanning the pages that brought up I found that a huge number of them were about the window screw up. Hëll, one link on page 1 was for Pravda. (link broken because of #$%$# spam filter.)
http://
english.pravda.ru/society/stories/29-01-2009/107033-obama_window-0
You’ve gotta at least give it some time to get in the news cycle.
I’ve seen studies that show that while most American journalists are to the left of the average American in social issues, they are actually to the right of the average American in economic issues (and perhaps foreign policy issues too, I don’t remember).
Ooooh. Good point.
Something to remember.
In other news, a Colorado politician rode his bicycle around downtown Denver or something, locked it up with a cable, and the bike got stolen anyways.
The politician, apparently a Republican, is now blaming Democrats and Denver Mayor Hickenlooper (since he’s a Dem), and saying that the people who stole it probably voted for Obama.
Bladestar, you’re more than welcome to join me in beating some common sense into this guy. 🙂
That’d be fun, but then he’d mumble through his broken jaw and stitches about how the Dems are responible for it.
Be really funny if they catch the guy who stole the bike and it turns out to be a registered republican…
Hickenlooper? What the hëll is the origin on that name? At least it’s not as teh Leer parents who named their daughter “Crystal Chanda”
And the number of pages couldn’t have anything to do with how long ago that event happened? Do you think there were over 60,000 pages about it a couple days after?
Well, yeah, ergo my “we’ll see.” Am I too subtle?
obama locked out window whitehouse
Results 1 – 10 of about 87,900 for obama locked out window whitehouse. (0.36 seconds)
yeah but by my rough calculations only about 18 of the first 50 hits are actually about Obama and the window. On the other hand, the first 50 of Bush and “locked door” are almost entirely at least in part about Bush and the locked door.
But as I said, we’ll see. One can also make the argument that with Bush it was just an incident that fed into the perceptions of those who would see him as a simpleton, whereas in Obama’s case he has not gotten that rap form even his opponents at this point. Also, Bush had a great expression on his face, self mocking if you saw it on video but just plain funny as a still photo.
Had it been Mccain I think it would have been hyped up as a “senior moment” but we’ll never know.
Bill Mulligan, do you feel equal outrage about the way the press portrayed Jimmy Carter’s encounter with an angry rabbit as symbolic of a hapless and enfeebled presidency? Or the way the press erroneously reported that Bill Clinton caused flight delays at LAX so he could receive an expensive haircut on Air Force One while it was sitting on the runway? Or the way the press erroneously reported that the Clintons looted the White House on their way out?
I’ve seen studies that show that while most American journalists are to the left of the average American in social issues, they are actually to the right of the average American in economic issues (and perhaps foreign policy issues too, I don’t remember).
I knew I should have gone to journalism school. Then again, these are the people who have started referring to the President of the United States as “Bam.” Bush and Obama were both expected to restore dignity to the White House, but maybe for that we really need to vote in a new press corps instead.
The President is actually growing on me. I’m starting to think he actually is what the last President was supposed to be– a dignified centrist who’ll put an end to the circus atmosphere.
Bill, to be fair, Carter had a “hapless and enfeebled presidency” without the rabbit. There’s no use in blaming the media for noticing a particularly apt metaphor.
David, you’ve inadvertantly made my point while missing it. That’s quite a trick.
I’m not complaining about the way the media treated Carter. I’m simply pointing out to Mr. Mulligan that the media treatment of George W. Bush was not substantially different than its treatment of Carter and Clinton.
Bill Mulligan : “But as I said, we’ll see. “
Yeah, that’s why I said that you’ve gotta at least give it some time to get in the news cycle. There’s really no way we can argue one side VS the other here for a good long while. With the Bush thing you have something that’s got the original stories, the people posting to others to check out the original stories, the people complaining about the original story, people’s year end wrap ups of Bush’s less than stellar moments, people’s year end wrap ups of the liberal media’s Bush Derangement Syndrome, Bush’s greatest hits stories covering his entire eight years and stories where people are bringing up the door story to compare it to the window story and/or talk about the coverage that each got.
The window story has the original stories, people bringing up the door story to compare it to the window story and/or talk about the coverage that each got and is only just really starting the rest. Right now it’s a bit like trying to say that no one cares about the upcoming Super Bowl since there are so many less hits about it than there are for past Super Bowls.
Too soon to really tell and it will remain hard to tell based on hits because of how many more hits the Bush thing will get from bloggers talking about the one and comparing it to the other.
The other issue with this is that I’ve seen no video of this. Even the UK’s Telegraph sub-headlines the story specifically as “Barack Obama has been photographed mistaking a window for a door as he tried to enter the White House” with no links to video. The Bush thing was at the tail end of a speech and there were a number of video cameras running. Video makes for a much better and funnier snippet before heading to a break than “and now a sequence of four photos that humorously show…”
Now, we can say that MSNBC covered the two events differently since the Bush thing was on a lot of there shows while I’ve seen the Obama thing only one time. But the flip side of the coin is, again, is that their political bias showing or is it showing that a video gets more play in the entertainment driven news media than just pictures will?
“Had it been McCain I think it would have been hyped up as a “senior moment” but we’ll never know.”
Maybe. Maybe even highly likely. But a lot of the McCain goofs that made the media were the video ones. The ones where he said something and their was only a transcript and a photo got quick play and then fell by the wayside. Again, video is seen as having more impact and effect than a picture by many in the media.
Bill Myers: “Bill Mulligan, do you feel equal outrage about the way the press portrayed Jimmy Carter’s encounter with an angry rabbit as symbolic of a hapless and enfeebled presidency?”
Too long ago, Bill. Not really a fair comparison for talking about the media now. We’ve got a completely different type of news media these days, a lot of the old blood from those days are gone or doing very little work these days and the guys and gals who are the bulk of the media these days weren’t there for the Rabbit Scare.
“Or the way the press erroneously reported that Bill Clinton caused flight delays at LAX so he could receive an expensive haircut on Air Force One while it was sitting on the runway? Or the way the press erroneously reported that the Clintons looted the White House on their way out?”
That’s a bit more recent and that act bit about the looting and vandalism actually got touched on again not long ago. Several Fox News anchors and commentators made little remarks about how they doubted that the Obama team had to come in to find computers with the ‘O’ keys broken off and other such evidence of childish vandalism. Maybe they missed the memo from Bush’s people where even they said that those rumors were hogwash. Or maybe they just didn’t care.
Jerry Chandler: “Too long ago, Bill. Not really a fair comparison for talking about the media now.”
Fair enough, although I wasn’t trying to use that incident as a point of comparison per se. I happen to know that Presidents Carter and Clinton aren’t high on Mulligan’s list of favorites. I was simply asking him whether he could work up equal outrage about the way the media treated them. My underlying point: accusations of media bias are often fueled by bias on the part of the accusers.
Anyway, this argument is going around in a circle. I’ve said my piece to the best of my ability, and I rest my case.
By the way, Obama’s window story — BORING.
Here’s a good window story. When a friend of mine was six, a babysitter conspired with one of his sisters to lock him out of the house while pretending to torture one of his stuffed animals. Rather than trying to open the glass door separating him from his beloved stuffed animal, he hurled himself through the glass.
For those wondering, my friend’s injuries were minor. The injuries to the glass door, however, were fatal.
Now, had Obama done something similar — well, THAT would’ve been COOL.
Sigh… I suppose my friend’s story isn’t a “window story.” Anyway, I still maintain — if Obama had become frustrated and hurled himself through the glass to get inside the building, THAT would’ve been COOL.
Yeah, but, Bill, think of how the media would run if Obama crashed through a door to save a stuffed animal.
“David, you’ve inadvertantly made my point while missing it. That’s quite a trick.”
Sigh… Jerry seemed to have the same interpretation that David did.
My sarcasm is, as they say in the courts, withdrawn. The jury will please disregard.
Yeah, but, Bill, think of how the media would run if Obama crashed through a door to save a stuffed animal.
THAT would be EVEN COOLER.
Bill Mulligan, do you feel equal outrage about the way the press portrayed Jimmy Carter’s encounter with an angry rabbit as symbolic of a hapless and enfeebled presidency?
What is this outrage you speak of?
The Bush/door thing was actually kind of funny, though some of the descriptions “Bush befuddled by locked door”–seem to be a matter of projection. Pulling on a door handle, getting no response and then pulling on the other door handle, before giving up, making a quip and exiting stage right does not suggest to me befuddlement but whatever.
Trying to make more of it than what it is is stupid, just as anyone making a big deal out of Obama’s little mistake looks stupid.
My point, which seems to have been missed, is that it’s a GOOD thing that the press does not seem to be making a big deal out of it. It’s not an altogether good thing when the president is an object of derision, though people seem to merrily disregard that when they think they can score a point. When it’s their guy getting shafted it’s suddenly bad taste.
As far as the rabbit thing goes, that was a totally self inflicted wound. Carter told his staff about it and they didn’t believe it. Then, in a moment of complete mental insanity, Carter’s own press secretary Jody Powell volunteered this incredible story to a reporter and has spent the rest of his life wondering what the hëll he was smoking that made him think that was a good idea.
Once the story got out they refused to release the photo (you can see it at http://www.narsil.org/politics/carter/large_rabbit_image.html) allowing editorial cartoonists to have a field day.
I’m no fan of Carter, though I probably like him more than Bill Clinton does, but I think he got a bad rap here–not only was he genuinely attacked by a rabbit, one with nasty, big, pointy teeth and a vicious streak a mile wide, but he wasn’t even the one who stupidly told the press about it.
OK, Bill. Fair enough. I misjudged you. You’re being more even-handed than I gave you credit for.
Nevertheless, we’re probably not going to see eye-to-eye about the media bias issue and I’m going to let this sleeping dog lie.
Bill’s Carter analogy brings up something I’d alluded to before. I have a fear that the press adulation of Obama could one day turn into the same kind of press roasting that Crater eventually got.
When JC became president there was a lot of press goodwill, much more than poor Jerry Ford ever got. I remember a Saturday Night Live sketch where carter, played by Dan Akroyd, was portrayed as some kind of uberman, doing everything from talking about the economy to helping a, ODing hippie come down off of a bad trip. A few years later…well, it wasn’t pretty.
When the press builds someone up and that person screws up they take it personally–hey, you made us look bad! If Obama hits some bad luck or makes the inevitable mistakes that any man will make in the office, it won’t surprise me if Chris Matthews goes from tingle feeler to avenging angel. (Neither one being my idea of a good journalist).
David, Roger –
This study about journalistic bias concluded that the folks of the press aren’t exception to a general rule: the richer you are, the more right-wing you are in economic matters. Rock stars and actors are the exception to this rule, but journalists apparently aren’t.
“My point, which seems to have been missed, is that it’s a GOOD thing that the press does not seem to be making a big deal out of it. It’s not an altogether good thing when the president is an object of derision, though people seem to merrily disregard that when they think they can score a point. When it’s their guy getting shafted it’s suddenly bad taste.”
Ah. See, I thought that, due to some of the overall discussion going on, that you were making a point about the press’s liberal bias. My mistake.
Ah. See, I thought that, due to some of the overall discussion going on, that you were making a point about the press’s liberal bias. My mistake.
Yeah, I got the same impression that Jerry did. Given the context of the discussion, it wasn’t a crazy interpretation, any more so than David’s and Jerry’s interpretation of my remarks re: Carter’s crazed rabbit.
When communicating via the internet, it’s easy to get annoyed and conclude that people “missed the point.” In fact, it’s something of an internet cliche. It’s worth considering, however, that perhaps everyone isn’t “missing the point.” The point may not have been clear.
Oh, and just so we’re clear — I’m aware this is advice I should not only give, but also take. 🙂
When JC became president there was a lot of press goodwill, much more than poor Jerry Ford ever got.
Jesus Christ was a U.S. President???
Oh, you meant Jimmy Carter…
Never mind.
I too worry that not just the press, but people in general, will turn on Obama at the first sign of trouble. On the other hand, I think Obama is a far stronger and smarter leader than was Jimmy Carter, and that Obama wouldn’t be flustered by a hissing rabbit.
One of my mantras at my new job whenever anyone complains is to reference my old job. “Still, it beats horse racing.” If/when something comes up, Obama will probably get a similar grace period. I’d put a line in about him beating his predecessor, but that could be taken in WAAAAAY too many ways.
And, Bill Mulligan, I now have the image of Carter in robes and a horned helm saying, “There are those who call me…Jim.”
Ah. See, I thought that, due to some of the overall discussion going on, that you were making a point about the press’s liberal bias. My mistake.
When communicating via the internet, it’s easy to get annoyed and conclude that people “missed the point.” In fact, it’s something of an internet cliche. It’s worth considering, however, that perhaps everyone isn’t “missing the point.” The point may not have been clear.
True, true, I wasn’t at all clear what point, if any, I was trying to make.
But anything that gets us back to Monty Python is all to the good.
It seems to me that the media is interested in telling a story. The news they report is structured to fit the characterization of its heroes.
It seems to me that the media is interested in telling a story.
Oh, it’s more than just an “interest.” There’s a reason reporters talk about pursuing a “story.” Journalism is storytelling. The ideal is to tell a story that reflects the truth by reporting in an objective manner. The truth is elusive at best, though, and I don’t believe humans are capable of true objectivity. Therefore journalism will always be more art than science, and the product will always be imperfect. The best we can hope for is that there will be some journalists who will at least strive to attain the ideal, and at least some people in the audience who will apply critical thinking to what they see, hear, and read in the media.
While I don’t agree with every one of Bill Mulligan’s conclusions about the state of modern journalism, his skepticism is healthy and appropriate. Rather than accepting what’s reported at face value, he questions, he analyzes, he looks for patterns and tries to put things in a larger context. That’s the best way to understand the news.
“But anything that gets us back to Monty Python is all to the good.”
Bill puts on women’s clothing and hangs around in bars.
I stand corrected.
Oh, Jerry! And I thought you were so rugged!
I wish to complain on the strongest possible terms about the previous entry in this webpage about the lumberjack who wears womens’ clothes. Some of my best friends are lumberjacks, and only a few of them are transvestites.
Yours faithfully,
Brigadier Sir Charles Arthur Strong (Mrs.)
Enough of that! That just silly!
You wanna nip back to my place?
Bill puts on women’s clothing and hangs around in bars.
No, he doesn’t.
We have pictures of him doing it. They were made with the finest crayons.
Yes you do.
Posted by: Bill Myers at January 30, 2009 07:22 AM
“Oh, it’s more than just an “interest.” There’s a reason reporters talk about pursuing a “story.” Journalism is storytelling. The ideal is to tell a story that reflects the truth by reporting in an objective manner. The truth is elusive at best, though, and I don’t believe humans are capable of true objectivity. Therefore journalism will always be more art than science, and the product will always be imperfect. The best we can hope for is that there will be some journalists who will at least strive to attain the ideal, and at least some people in the audience who will apply critical thinking to what they see, hear, and read in the media.”
The thing is, telling a good fiction story is presenting a certain sequence of events in a way that furthers character development and the overall point of the story. But then in news it seems that (sometime) true events are also presented in a certain way in order to further a certain overall story and characterization. Maybe it would have been better if news was more like a bad story or movie — a string of actions scenes with very little story or characterization?
“I wish to complain on the strongest possible terms about the previous entry in this webpage about the lumberjack who wears womens’ clothes. Some of my best friends are lumberjacks, and only a few of them are transvestites.”
Strawman!!! nobody said Bill was a lumberjack.
We apologize for the fault in this blog. Those responsible have been sacked.
A rabbit once bit my sister. Mind you, rabbit bites can be pretty nasti.
Well, it’s not original to me, but you can certainly go with the “figures — Clinton goes thousands of miles just to pick up two women” option.
Uh … why are there 99 comments from some other thread entirely here now?
I have no idea what’s going on. I went to the section of the site that I use to manage posts and such and these comments are invisible; I can’t even delete them.
.
I’ve alerted Glenn and hopefully he can straighten this out.
.
PAD
Well, not after you’ve ruined the joke 🙁
It’s not from another thread, Tim. These are the newest comments on this thread. One of the aspects of the blog’s recent format switch is that it no longer displays all the comments on one page. You have to click “Older Comments” at the bottom in order to see the first ones.
No, Tim’s right, something is screwy. Note that the vast majority of the posts are dated from January and February.
.
PAD
I dunno.
Call me an idealist, but I hope to go that for once O’Reilly, Beck, and the other windbags from Fox will just shut up and call it a victory.
How can you even criticize someone for saving two innocent (as far as we know) people from a harsh fate?
Thanks, Luigi, but as shocking as it may seem, I am in fact capable of reading both the posts and their dates. As Peter has pointed out, you’re incorrect here.
D’Oh!