Hardball just highlighted the fact that Ken Starr is the new President of Baylor, and it made me think- as crazy as the Clinton era impeachment coverage was, if it happened today, with the Milbanks and the Knollers and the Gregory’s and all the worthless, overpaid, fierce proponents of the daily narrative, the complete tabloidization of the national cable media and much of the traditional media, as well as the increased prominence of the right wing narrative machine, incorporating the wingnut welfare foundations, the blogs, and the thousands of political analysts you see everywhere, it would be far worse. Who would stand up and say “Enough!” After all, we did just spend the last decade debating whether or not torture is an American value, and I don’t think the good guys won that debate.
Maybe a lonesome James Fallows and Jay Rosen, but I can’t think of anyone else of stature who would. The rest would be pimping page views, interviewing Dick Cheney, and quoting Palin’s facebook page. And it goes without saying that I find that extremely depressing.
And yes, that was the mother of all sentences I just wrote there. If someone wants to try to fix it, have at it.
Shalimar
If? Seriously? You don’t think impeachment will be the first thing on the table if Republicans take control of the House and Senate in 2011?
BTD
I think there would never have been an impeachment in this environment because as bad as things are now, the Establishment Media is not nearly as influential. I think you are wrong when you write of “the increased prominence of the right wing narrative machine.”
It is less prominent and powerful now imo.
For just one example, MSNBC or CNBC whatever the network Tweety was on was full bore Clinton/Dem hate.
Everyone was trying to be like Fox. That is no longer the case.
blahblahblah
And which political party has accepted this situation as a default capitulation? Why, they ain’t big enough to be elephants. Just a bunch of little donkeys who can’t even hold knapsacks any longer. Useless is worse than stupid.
beltane
At least we would be here if something similar were to happen today. And remember, mean blog posts were what took down Evan Bayh.
From what I recall, and I followed the impeachment proceedings pretty closely, the media was every bit as venal and horrible in 1998 as they are today. The only difference is that David Broder and Cokie Roberts were twelve years younger, and the only voice on the internet that anyone heard was Matt Drudge. Oh, and Arlen Spector is a Democrat so he wouldn’t deliver his classic verdict of ‘Not innocent but not guilty’
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I don’t know if I see that much of a difference between what he had fifteen years ago–Cokie, Timmy, Broder– and their idiot spawn like Gregory and Milbank. Some of the more prominent jackasses of that era–Abe Rosenthal, Evans and Novak, Safire–have quit the scene. I think if anything the left media, such as it is, is in a stronger position to fight back, even if the right still drives the CW narrative (case in point, that ridiculous CNN (push) poll out today, “does Obama deserve a second term?”)/
BTD
@beltane:
Scottish “Not Proven” was Specter’s line.
FoxinSocks
I know there were a few voices in the media wilderness, but there really wasn’t anyone during the Clinton impeachment saga who stood up and said enough, except for the American people. It was the Republicans’ election losses in 1998 that scared them into backing off.
The thing is, the American people haven’t said enough yet. They haven’t punished the Republicans for trying to drive this country into a ditch, then for good measure setting fire to the vehicle and doing a little victory dance around the open flames. The American people, so far, have been rewarding the Republicans for their destructive antics.
Only once the American people have said enough will the Republicans back off. They won’t get any saner, I don’t think, but for a little while at least, they’ll get quieter.
Remember November
What would they impeach Obama on that they aren’t guilty of themselves? Sorry, but failing to walk on water and fix the economy aren’t impeachable offenses.
Fire up the DilDozer!
beltane
@BTD: That horrible Gibson guy (don’t remember his first name) was on MSNBC at the time. In fact, MSNBC started out as a wingnutty news channel.
demo woman
The November elections are going to be ugly. With Fox News running the repub party, they will continue to preach economic doom and gloom under the democrats.
The other networks continue to follow them to the gutter.
Today I was thinking about what would a president McCain have done. No capital gains tax, less regulation, lower marginal tax rates and a supreme court appointment. Oh yeah I forgot the war in Iran while Pakistan was allowed to fail. What did I forget?
Yeah the job situation sucks but just imagine if you will what the US would look like under McCain.
JK
OT
Congrats John, you were quoted on The Hotline’s Blogometer
http://blogometer.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/02/216_its_never_e.html
Gregory
@Shalimar:
It’s a safe bet the Republicans won’t be duped into pre-emptively taking impeachment off the table, the way Pelosi did in advance of disclosure of many of Bush’s misdeeds.
BTD
@beltane:
Yep. Geraldo believe it or not was the voice of reason on that network.
John does not remember the era correctly imo.
BTD
@FoxinSocks:
In the 1998 midterms, the American People said enough (the Dems won seats), and the GOP did not stop.
Mostly because the Beltway Media cheered it on.
As I say, I think John’s memory of the Media environment in 1998 is not accurate.
Midnight Marauder
@BTD:
I think Fox News and Glenn Beck would like to have a word with you.
Edit: And please let us not let this thread yet again devolve into BTD’s Inane WankFest Hour.
Norwegian Shooter
Shorter JC:
Clinton-era crazy, Obama-era FUBAR.
very reverend crimson fire of compassion
Troll-punching concern hippies, the lot of you.
Sentient Puddle
@Gregory: Are you implying that it would’ve been smart in any way, shape, or form to impeach Bush in ’07 or ’08?
BTD
@Midnight Marauder:
Fox News was on the rise in 1998, not yet treated as a GOP Noise Machine, and the other news organization tried to emulate it.
Fox does not, imo, drive the narrative anymore.
Indeed, CNN and MSNBC are at great pains to not be seen as Fox-like.
In 1998, it was the reverse.
I would add that 1998 was the era of the Howell Raines NYTimes, when hatred of Clinton was spewed constantly.
The WaPo is pretty much the same imo.
General Winfield Stuck
Change For the Worse
beltane
@FoxinSocks: Back then, poll after poll after poll showed that Americans liked Bill Clinton and did not want him impeached. The media first ignored these polls, and then reacted to them with disbelief, shocked that Americans were such immoral people for not sharing their outrage over Clinton’s shockingly deviant (to them) behavior.
When the story first broke, the media blowhards were almost universal in their demands that Bill Clinton resign. This was the American media’s darkest hour up to that time. They surpassed even this low during the lead up to the Iraq war, but their behavior during the Lewinsky affair showed that they were all complete scumbags who didn’t give a rat’s ass about the country.
jrosen
Good try, John, but Norman Mailer you ain’t. (I hope that cheers you up a little.)
HumboldtBlue
I don’t have the reference handy, but I read this morning that he has serious misgivings about the role he played in the Clinton presidency and carries regrets about doing it.
Gregory
@Sentient Puddle:
No, but I’m stating explicitly that it was stupid for Pelosi to get maneuvered into ruling it out before we knew about half the stuff Bush and company had done.
BTD
Also 1998 is when Drudge became Drudge, and was treated as a legitimate media star.
Think Powerline as blog of the Year in 2004 multiplied by 1000.
Omigawd, remembering 1998 is horrible.
The bullshit from the Sally Quinns. John misses it imo. Sally Quinn wrote her infamous article in 1998:
“This beautiful capital,” President Clinton said in his first inaugural address, “is often a place of intrigue and calculation. Powerful people maneuver for position and worry endlessly about who is in and who is out, who is up and who is down, forgetting those people whose toil and sweat sends us here and pays our way.” With that, the new president sent a clear challenge to an already suspicious Washington Establishment.
And now, five years later, here was Clinton’s trusted adviser Rahm Emanuel, finishing up a speech at a fund-raiser to fight spina bifida before a gathering that could only be described as Establishment Washington.
“There are a lot of people in America who look at what we do here in Washington with nothing but cynicism,” said Emanuel. “Heck, there are a lot of people in Washington who look at us with nothing but cynicism.” But, he went on, “there are good people here. Decent people on both sides of the political aisle and on both sides of the reporter’s notebook.”
Emanuel, unlike the president, had become part of the Washington Establishment. “This is one of those extraordinary moments,” he said at the fund-raiser, “when we come together as a community here in Washington — setting aside personal, political and professional differences.”
Actually, it wasn’t extraordinary. When Establishment Washingtonians of all persuasions gather to support their own, they are not unlike any other small community in the country.
On this evening, the roster included Cabinet members Madeleine Albright and Donna Shalala, Republicans Sen. John McCain and Rep. Bob Livingston, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, PBS’s Jim Lehrer and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, all behaving like the pals that they are. On display was a side of Washington that most people in this country never see. For all their apparent public differences, the people in the room that night were coming together with genuine affection and emotion to support their friends — the Wall Street Journal’s Al Hunt and his wife, CNN’s Judy Woodruff, whose son Jeffrey has spina bifida.
But this particular community happens to be in the nation’s capital. And the people in it are the so-called Beltway Insiders — the high-level members of Congress, policymakers, lawyers, military brass, diplomats and journalists who have a proprietary interest in Washington and identify with it.
They call the capital city their “town.”
And their town has been turned upside down.
With some exceptions, the Washington Establishment is outraged by the president’s behavior in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The polls show that a majority of Americans do not share that outrage. Around the nation, people are disgusted but want to move on; in Washington, despite Clinton’s gains with the budget and the Mideast peace talks, people want some formal acknowledgment that the president’s behavior has been unacceptable. They want this, they say, not just for the sake of the community, but for the sake of the country and the presidency as well.
”
Sorry, John’s memory is faulty.
BTD
@BTD:
Funniest part of that bit was Bob Livingston, who had to resign after his affair with an aide was exposed by Larry Flynt.
slag
One word. Politico.
Midnight Marauder
@BTD:
And now it’s 2010. Fox News is the ascendant cable news organization, they are not only the GOP Noise Machine, but also the driving bulwork of the party’s electoral and ideological philosophy, and the other news organizations still try to emulate their approach to
“the news”infotainment.It doesn’t matter who’s in the driver’s seat when you’ve already so thoroughly poisoned the well.
While directly emulating a great deal of their business model, which in turn affects their approach to the world of
journalisminfotainment.Well, nothing to disagree with there.
Midnight Marauder
@BTD:
And based on all of that, you don’t concur that the Village would be more prone to chasing after an Obama impeachment?
I know this would never happen with someone like you, but it would seem like the thesis of this post has escaped you.
BTD
@Midnight Marauder:
Fox is not a driver of news imo.
Fox is Fox. It gets 3 million people to watch in its best moments and they are all crazy Republicans.
It’s not as important imo as it was then, when people were fighting for those crazy 3 million.
Bob L
I recall the village mentality was quite vivid with the punditry during the Clinton impeachment. The thing that stood out in my mind was Mark Russel ranting during one of his “comedic” skits, to music, enraged that some poll showed the public in general didn’t share his rage that the President got a blow job.
The reporting now kind of sounds the same. The elite has decreed a period of national rage against the usurper and you can sense the same exasperation that the filthy plebs aren’t doing as they are told. They can’t even point at the teabaggers since those guys are always filled with rage.
demo woman
CNN was not as political. CNN Headline News covered the impeachment and what will the children think but they also covered other news. 24/7 news has now become all politics all the time. 24/7 media covered the MA senate race with the same fervor that they covered the presidential race.
For a lot of people politics is just not local anymore.
Morbo
@Remember November: A: Not prosecuting Cheney for war crimes. What, you don’t think they’re up to that level of hypocrisy?
jenniebee
Except it wouldn’t. People tolerated the Clinton impeachment kabuki because he was bringing us peace and prosperity. If you aren’t a political junkie and you’re getting your annual raises and your Christmas bonus, you can accept that trivia is important and that running the country is so easy that the country can afford to throw away Presidents if they get too stale or too laid. On the other hand, when you’re hearing rumors of layoffs at work and you just spread your property taxes among three credit cards and your school district defunded all extracurricular activities so now your kids want $350 a month so they can stay in drama and band and the Spanish club it’s possible to get very pissed off when the guy you voted for gets thrown out for getting something you really wish your wife would agree to more often, anyway.
BTD
@Midnight Marauder:
It wouldn’t happen again. At the least, NBC would not go that way.
Frankly, I doubt we’ll see it that way ever again.
It was insanity.
But look, maybe I am missing John’s point. Maybe you can explain it to me.
But you might want to consider whether John is misremembering 1998.
danimal
They’ll impeach, or at least keep the question in the public eye, for one simple reason: They want to stain Obama’s credibility in time for the 2012 election. The GOP would love to neutralize Obama’s main political asset–his character and demeanor. They want to paint him as worse than Nixon. So far, only the 28 percenters are buying that kool-aid, but an impeachment can muddy the waters pretty quickly.
The “crime” won’t even matter to them. They may even have the balls to impeach him for failing to prosecute Bush’s torture regime.
geg6
John, I think it was just as crazy then as it is now. The only difference is that Clinton only was liked and admired by black people. Today the president IS black. Otherwise, same old, same old.
BombIranForChrist
The whole Clenis Affair mainstreamed right wing insanity through the tastefully cloaked prurience of network news. Once you had Brokaw talking about the Clenis, the path to Dubya-ism was all but assured.
freelancer
@BTD:
You’re arguing a false dichotomy again. You’re saying this like Fox is the only purveyor of inanity in media, covering horseraces over policy. Politics over goverment? That fetish amongst the other pillars of journalism that you’re touting is systemic.
Jules
Interesting interview today on Terry Gross with Ken Gromley the author of a new book titled “The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr.”
Gormley interviewed Clinton and Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel who led the investigation. Gormley also spoke with many other key players in the story, including Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, Paula Jones, Susan McDougal and Henry Hyde. Gormley is a professor and interim dean at Duquesne University Law School. He’s an expert on Watergate and special prosecutors, and wrote the book “Archibald Cox: Conscience of A Nation.”
From the interview:
Shalimar
Whether the media is or isn’t more in the tank for Republicans, what no one can argue with is that the Republican base has gone so far out to the right since 1998 as to be incomprehensible to normal human beings. And the vast majority of them want Obama impeached for a thousand different things starting with the whole Birther nonsense. These people will be pressing for Congressional investigations of all their insane theories, and they will get them if Republicans gain power.
That is how the impeachment machine starts, and it won’t stop until Republican congresspersons have convinced themselves that impeachment is a political winner. By that point they will have a whole laundry list of items that they are impeaching Obama for, though being a damned communist foreigner is enough for most of the wingnut base.
BTD
@freelancer:
Not really following your point. Are you saying that the news is more infotainment now than it was then?
I’m not so sure but even if it is (O.J. anyone?), I doubt it would have been the same.
At this point, there is no shock value in it all.
I guess if John is saying it would be more of a farce, perhaps I see his point.
But I doubt it would have the same real life consequences.
Mike E
@Midnight Marauder:
I believe somebody pegged this as defining deviancy down–it’s the result of GOP media evolution IMO.
slag
@BTD: I’m with MM on this. Fox’s business model has won. That’s all that really mattered.
But then again, maybe I’m wrong on that…I better check Sarah Palin’s facebook page before I decide for sure.
BTD
@slag:
Here’s the way I look at it.
No one made fun of Sally Quinn and David Broder.
Today they are not as influential.
slag
@BTD: I’ll see you an OJ and raise you a balloon boy. Only one of them killed somebody.
General Winfield Stuck
The internet is much more prominent now than it was to drive scandal. That includes blogs, online mags, and wholly self contained news outlets like Politico and Huffpo. And the MSM with it’s online versions. A lot more people are hooked into the 24 hours news cycle. Add to that the first black president, and all the mixed feelings from downright rage from quite a few to suspicion by others, and the fact the guy is seen in a range fluctuating between the politics Karl Marx and Uncle Adolph and other points in between and without, then we have a powder keg waiting to go off with an Obama misstep, or one from somewhere in his administration. Plus he is perceived to be a liberal democrat by his opponents, and to many of his alleged supporters, he could be a right winger in dem clothing. And a lot more people with 24 hour access to minute by minute reporting from reporters going to sleep at night hoping to be the one to uncover the big scandal scoop on The One and become famous. And it doesn’t matter if they voted for the guy or not.
Midnight Marauder
@BTD:
Now I know why I consistently find your opinion to be so worthless. Disagree with their approach to “journalism” all you want to, but it’s absolutely disingenuous to say that Fox News is not a “driver of news,” particularly as we’re discussing it in this context of this post. That being, bullshit Village scandals-du-jour. You are going to actually attempt to make the argument in a credible fashion, that Fox News is not able to drive storylines (regardless of their legitimacy or substance) in this day in age? Just because they have a limited target audience?
With that line of thinking, you miss completely what is so potently dangerous about the nonsense that Fox News spreads throughout the Village, which is the ease that their non-stories turn into Very Serious Matters when they land in the feeble minds of the Villagers. The fact that you’re talking about fighting for the “crazy 3 million” demonstrates that you’re arguing on an entirely different, irrelevant track. Or to borrow a page:
freelancer:
@BTD:
NBC of Chuck Todd, Joe Scarborough, and Pat Buchanan fame? Why don’t you offer me a glass of water to wash down that bullshit when I’m done swallowing it? Seriously, you think NBC would not go down that road? And LOLWUT? to this gem:
DO YOU NOT REMEMBER THE DEBACLE THAT WAS THE TOWN HALL FIASCO?! “KEEP GUVMINT OUT OF MY MEDICARE!” You don’t think we can reach that level of insanity again? By all means, send me a ticket to whatever fantasy land you are living in. I’ve always wanted to vacation under a green sky. And don’t play that “you might want to consider John is the one missing the point” bullshit with me. I did consider that fact briefly…
before I came after you.
geg6
BTD: I think the only real difference is that Clinton put himself into a situation that they could exploit. Obama is a much more personally and, I think, politically disciplined person. If they went for impeachment now, I think they’d have a hell of a time finding any sort of easy “high crimes and misdemeanors” to pin on him like they did Clinton. And I really think it might send the country over the edge. And I don’t think it would go over the edge the way they’d want it to.
Ana Gama
OT
From the “This is a piece of good news” department:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/85439.html
Brian J
Since he’s done nothing even remotely awful enough to qualify him to be removed from office, I’m tempted to say that they aren’t dumb enough to try. It’s one thing, after all, to let the base of the party have a couple of moments in the spotlight to shout some (insane) things, but it’s quite another to let that become the policy of the party. I think–or maybe hope–that there are enough grown ups let in the Republican party so that any person who tries this would be stopped.
If that’s not the case, and these guys really do try to impeach him, perhaps there will finally be a backlash against their insanity. After all, it’s one thing to have an ill-timed concern about the deficit, but it’s quite another to actively cheer on the destruction of the governing process.
James K. Polk, Esq.
Who is this BTD guy, and why doesn’t he have his own blog instead of treating the comments here like his personal forum?
Martin
Obama appoints Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson to his deficit panel. Interesting choices. I’m having trouble not liking this.
BTD
@Midnight Marauder:
Well, I guess we’re done then. sorry to have wasted your time.
slag
@BTD: I see a ton of evidence that their mindset is very influential. Maybe the individuals are less influential just because there are more people with their mindset.
demo woman
@geg6: They’d invent something.
BTD
@geg6:
Possibly. But then it really is not worse now than then.
but I really think there is less authority in Media than there was then.
BTD
@slag:
One of them dominated the news for a year.
One dominated it for a few days.
Cat Lady
The difference now is we have the right wing/media template from the 90s so when the same players play the same games we on the left are able to predict to the point of making it a game. Of course being right leads to being dismissed, because the Village is self-selected against meritocracy. If the question is which Villager would stand up and say Enough, I think the answer is none. Fallows has already written his press screed, and been ignored.
I wish I had a dollar for every time Atrios or DougJ or John was able to predict almost verbatim which right wing blogger or which useful idiot on the left or which bobblehead will frame their agenda using which guise. It’s like the blogosphere and the MSM are running on parallel tracks on opposite sides of a one way mirror. The MSM see their reflection and think they’re smart and clever and preen, while the rest of us see them for the shallow un-self aware hacks they are.
Dana Milbank said last week he couldn’t bear to read any comments on his McCain man-love column, and I’m sure the other Villagers don’t either. They’re in the bubble, they want to be in the bubble, and they get paid to stay in the bubble.
Violet
Baylor University can have Ken Starr. The school that had only just allowed students to dance on campus for two years when the Clinton scandal broke is going to be led by the guy who made the phrase “oral s3x” a household discussion point. Seems like a perfect fit.
The media? Meh. No worse, no better than has ever been. News just travels faster.
Mike E
@Jules:
Both-sidesism bullshit. I can’t wait for this Brooks wannabe to write a sequel…
slag
@James K. Polk, Esq.: In this particular instance, BTD is commenting on the main subject of the post in question. I view it as a welcome improvement and prefer to encourage it. But then, I have no problem arguing with people.
demo woman
Politics in the 90’s was different. 24/7 did not cover every house race and every senate race non stop. Kennedy and Gingrich were mentioned but who else. Now a days with the internet and 24/7 every race is dire.
Mnemosyne
@Midnight Marauder:
You almost act as though the news media spent their entire summer hypnotized by the “spontaneous” protests of the teabaggers. It’s not like they sent 100 reporters to cover the 600 attendees at the Tea Party convention or anything. Clearly conservative dominance of the media is over.
BTD
@slag:
I don’t agree. I think there is no dominate mindset that is a powerful influence anymore.
But I am of the view that the Media’s influence overall is on the wane.
LM
I agree with you. Our press coverage has worsened, and–something I would never have predicted–progressive blogs frequently act as engines of hostility toward the Dem administration. Would Clinton have survived impeachment if he’d been under similar assault from Dems as well as Reps?
Sure Obama’s administration has served up disappointments this year, but how much does a person read in support of even the good parts of good Dem bills and projects? Obama threw a bajillion bucks into worthwhile programs and infrastructure repair in the stimulus package, but nearly all we heard about it was negative, with blogs mostly complaining it was too small. Ditto the Senate hcr bill–it had great subsidies and out-of-pocket ceilings, but all most Dems heard from their own was that it didn’t have a public option. The merits/deficiencies aside, there’s much more negative framing from the left now than there was when Clinton was president. (Think how many lefties carried Clinton’s water even to the point of talking up NAFTA.)
I wonder if any future Dem administration will be able to overcome this. Even if the next Dem president is more skilled than Obama at “messaging,” will it matter? The message has to get out there, and the MSM and cable do negligible research beyond self-cancelling Rep-said/Dem-said, while blogs often focus on a few narrow complaints and relentlessly hammer them in hopes of moving the “Overton window.” Analysis skewed that way is bound to keep Dems disgruntled. I don’t see any reason to think Dems, much less the media, would stand behind Clinton now the way they did then.
Midnight Marauder
@BTD:
You should be.
Some Guy
You have given Hawthorne a run for the money, sentence-wise. From the Scarlett Letter, chapter 18. The first 2 sentences are for a wisp of context:
“But Arthur Dimmesdale! Were such a man once more to fall, what plea could be urged in extenuation of his crime? None; unless it avail him somewhat that he was broker, down by long and exquisite suffering; that his mind was darkened and confused by the very remorse which harrowed it; that, between fleeing as an avowed criminal, and remaining as a hypocrite, conscience might find it hard to strike the balance; that it was human to avoid the peril of death and infamy, and the inscrutable machinations of an enemy; that, finally, to this poor pilgrim, on his dreary and desert path, faint, sick, miserable, there appeared a glimpse of human affection and sympathy, a new life, and a true one, in exchange for the heavy doom which he was now expiating.”
BTD
@Mnemosyne:
It is less dominant than it was in 1998 is the point I was making.
A corollary to that point is that since media consumption is now quite diffused, the news media’s influence is much less than it was in 1998.
As I understood the premise of john’s post it was, you think 1998 was bad, imagine if that all happened now.
My response was that it was worse in 1998 than it was now.
Brian J
@Violet:
When I was looking into law schools to apply to, I looked at Baylor, because it has a pretty good law school and it’s in Texas, which would fulfill my desire for a big change pretty well. Then I read that bit about dancing, but I thought it was a joke. It wasn’t, obviously. I’m a fairly liberal guy, and while I am not liberal enough to feel out of place in, say, Houston (or so I think), I’d lose my damn mind at Baylor. In the same way that Hampshire College or Slippery Rock (or whatever school makes an ax for chopping your own wood mandatory) is only for some people, but not me, Baylor is the same way.
Shalimar
Do you watch CNN and MSNBC during the daytime? They may not be as openly ideological as they were in the past, but both still have a fondness for pundit showdowns where the right is represented by either a raving loon or a professional liar, and the left is represented by someone like Lanny Davis or Harold Ford. Corporate Dems, in other words. The only reason CNN and MSNBC don’t go after Obama constantly is because his finance people are corporate shills too. If he ever tried to stray from the reservation and pass real economic reform, CNN and MSNBC would crucify him.
Midnight Marauder
@BTD:
This.Is.A.Different.Argument.
freelancer
@slag:
Well then, I admire your Cal Ripkin like stamina, because after one day of looping around the same intrasigence and singular ideas of the same person, I lost my Ironhorse status. Even my attempts at subtlety went right over his head.
BTD
@LM:
I think that this is a strange argument.
Democrats in Congress killed Clinton’s health care bill.
On NAFTA, Democrats in the House voted against it by a vast majority.
Obama has had much more unified Congressional Dem support than Clinton received.
To be sure Obama earned it politically in that he won a landslide while Clinton won comfortably in a 3 person race.
demo woman
@Some Guy: Nah.. Hawthorne won. It does sound like he was talking about the present day repubs though. They don’t even try to strike a balance though.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
@BTD:
I got that far and started laughing my ass off. Then I read the rest and laughed some more.
I’ll leave it at that.
slag
@BTD: Now there’s a whole herd of them that go by different names. Not even including MoDo (and who would want to exclude her?), there’s Milbank and Cilizza, the whole cast and crew of Politico, and even (as was before mentioned) Adam Nagourney at the Times. Not to mention Andrew Sullivan and his stunt doubles. To name a few.
I haven’t seen a mass insurgency from the other side, by any stretch. As was mentioned in the last thread, I think Ezra Klein is pretty much our primary force for good in today’s media-industrial complex. Yes, there are more liberal bloggers than there were (obviously), but two issues: 1. Who–besides other liberal bloggers–links to them; 2. How many of them deal with substantive issues?
geg6
demo woman: Oh, I have no doubt they’d try to invent something. But I truly believe that the American people (the sane 70% or so) would be outraged. So much so, after all the craziness over Birthers and Teabaggers and that ilk and the economic meltdown and the obstruction in Congress and everything else we’ve witnessed recently, would go nuts. And not good nuts. Like perhaps really and truly pitchforks and torches nuts. This country is like a powder keg, ready to blow. And this could be what finally lights the match that sets it off.
cat48
Well, Keith Olbermann quit after the sex scandal broke so I guess he might stand up and say, “Enough!” once again.
Per wiki:
“When the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998, The Big Show with Keith Olbermann morphed into White House in Crisis. Olbermann became frustrated as his show was consumed by the Lewinsky story. In 1998, he stated that his work at MSNBC would “make me ashamed, make me depressed, make me cry.”[28] Olbermann left MSNBC for Fox Sports Net shortly thereafter”
Sadly, it continued on anyway. I’ve always respected him for that. I honestly couldn’t watch it after my initial shock wore off for more than about 1/2 hr a day. I read a lot during that period.
BTD
@Midnight Marauder:
It is central to mine.
As I said, if John’s argument is it would be more of a farce now, then i guess my disagreement is misplaced. I do not disagree with that.
That it would be worse in terms of how it effected the country, then no, I do not agree.
ArchPundit
Actually 1998 was when Keith Olbermann quit because he couldn’t do an hour of tv on a blowjob every night. Didn’t have much of an effect.
In many ways the blogosphere, MSNBC, and a Colbert/Stewart may not drive the narrative, but compared to 1998 there are a lot of tools to fight back with and a lot of checks on the outright lying done by pundits and Republicans. It won’t stop them, but it does push back against the worst of it.
Of course, we still have David “he trashed the place” Broder and Joe Lieberman to be scolds, but Lieberman would be defeated soundly if he pulled what he did in 1998 giving cover to the Republicans (hell, he’ll probably be defeated anyway) and Broder doesn’t appear on much other than Bob Edwards.
The Main Gauche of Mild Reason
Personally, I don’t think it would be the same because of the huge cadre of people around my age who can actually vote now who would think “they want to impeach him for a BLOWJOB?”
I think people are apt to underestimate how much of the anti-Clinton bias in the incident was driven by the “eww, gross!” factor in the elder media and voting population.
ArchPundit
cat–1 minute dammit!
BTD
@slag:
Those names were all there in 1998.
Sully was a leading Tweety guest voice for impeachment.
slag
@BTD:
OK. What’s it being replaced with exactly?
demo woman
@BTD: Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought LM’s comment had more to do with the impeachment itself. You had whiny Joe but most dems did stand behind Clinton.
BTD
@demo woman:
I think she compared it expressly to NAFTA.
Midnight Marauder
@BTD:
Well then–and really, make sure you read this next part very carefully:
SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT!
BTD
@slag:
Not much of anything I suppose.
I am tempted to say blogs but that’s not really growing either anymore.
It’s a hell of a question.
Violet
@The Main Gauche of Mild Reason:
Agreed. It’s the same way that the older generation seems terrified of gays in the military or getting married, while younger people just don’t seem to care much at all.
Now there are real pushes to change marijuana laws and people think it’s sensible and rational to consider it. Clinton had to go with the “didn’t inhale” defense.
We have come a little ways forward since then, even if it doesn’t seem like it.
ajr22
I’m sure Luke Russert would be a strong voice of calm and reason.
geg6
Brian J @70: I am no booster of Slippery Rock University (we call it Slimy Pebble), but PLEASE do not confuse it with some fundie nuthouse. It’s a public state university. Perhaps you meant Grove City College, a place you send your kid if you want them to be ignorant fundie wingnuts.
BTD
@Midnight Marauder:
I read it. Not sure what to make of it or your reaction.
Care to explain?
freelancer
@BTD:
Okay, flag. Doughy Pantload spoof. For Real.
birthmarker
For the younger set, the kiddies out there–Clinton’s impeachment was a total circus. Geraldo was one of the few really staunch defenders of Clinton, IIRC. He devoted a nightly show to it. I lived for it.
It was also extremely expensive. There were figures of like 100 million plus spent by Congress on investigations.
And the accusers’ own sexual dalliances began to come to light. I am not going to look it all up right now but it was an affair here, a love child over there…
Then you had the ridiculous Paula Jones aspect of it all. She had her very own keeper! Some blond woman.
Then, for all that–crickets, I believe they managed to garner 50 votes in the Senate. What a waste of time and resources.
You think that they won’t do it again, but don’t put anything past them. For all we know the setup is in the works right now. And it will be new and improved this time, trust me.
very reverend crimson fire of compassion
@Brian J:
Umm, that’s been the Republican Party platform since Reagan.
AhabTRuler
@Some Guy: I hated that book in HS, but Hawthorne put his thumb pretty squarely on it, didn’t he. Things ain’t changed a goddamned bit.
BTD
@ajr22:
That’s a funny comment but here’s my question, do you think he’ll be worse than Tim? And do you think he’ll have the same influence?
slag
@BTD:
I don’t see how these two statements are compatible. Is there some outside harmonizing force now protecting us from farce? If so, let’s bottle that stuff and sell it on the open market.
Midnight Marauder
@BTD:
Surely, you cannot be that dense.
Kryptik
If you don’t think Fox News et. al. don’t drive the news today, one word:
ACORN.
NYTimes and WaPo proudly proclaimed the need to dedicate reporters to the “Glenn Beck beat” as they affectionately called it so they wouldn’t get “scooped” by Fox and folks again.
Oh…and the Teabaggers of course, propped up by Fox, hailed by media units as being a genuine, populist, folksy movement.
Fox doesn’t drive the news cycle my ass.
Comrade Luke
Does BTD stand for Brick Toven Dill?
Rosali
I need a little clarification here. Are you saying if it happened today and Clinton was the sitting president or are you saying if it happened today with Obama and an intern?
I can guarantee you that, if it happened today, Obama’s impeachment over a BJ would be 100x worse than what Clinton would face today. I don’t even want to imagine the media freakout and the subsequent storming of the WH gates with pitchforks that would come from Obama’s hypothetical impeachment proceedings.
BTD
@slag:
I think media is a complete farce in almost every way and yes, I think we are more “farce proofed” in that now we all can recognize that the impeachment was a farce and there would be a significant segment of the media that would see it and say it that way.
I guess my memory of Broder, Cokie, Sally Quinn and all of them in 1998 and how they were treated as opposed to how they are treated now is different than most of you.
You think they are treated the same I guess. I don’t.
Pangloss
Much worse today than 1998. Much.
The closest think to Swift Boaters was “Harry and Louise” fearmongering against Health Care. Since then we’ve had the rise of Fox News, the Swift Boat campaign and the Citizens United SCOTUS decision.
John Cole
Hey- I like to fight with BTD as much as anyone, but I don’t like the hostility going on here. He’s arguing. He’s here. I don’t want this place turning into one of those websites where people are afraid to comment.
And yes, I know I am a hypocrite in regards to this, because I am quick on the GFY and DIAF triggers myself.
BTD
@Kryptik:
It’s a word that I doubt more than 5% of the populace would even know.
If that is driving the news now, then I think my point is made.
Tea party would have been a better argument but I also think the reach on that is extremely limited.
rootless_e
Let’s not forget Russ Feingold, the prototype FDL-progressive and his shameful role in Clinton impeachment.
BTD
@John Cole:
I appreciate that but not necessary.
It’s all good fun.
slag
@John Cole: Thank you! A lot.
And once again, I disagree with BTD. It is necessary.
BTD
@rootless_e:
I never forget that.
Hell, he pulled one of those on Reid not a couple of weeks ago.
Violet
I think the media are more followers rather than leaders of stories as they used to be. There used to be money for media folks to go research stories in depth and do actual reporting. Now they hear about something on Twitter and they follow that.
There’s money for some – as in large paychecks for a select few newsreaders/hair models – but the money for actual reporters isn’t there. Most network foreign bureaus have been shut down – result: little foreign news. But OMG! Anna Nicole Smith died! There’s money to send network reporters to the Bahamas to follow that non-story for a week. But did they break the “story” that she was doing drugs? No, they followed the “story” after she died.
Sure there are plenty of ties between wingnut groups and Fox, but that’s more a case of pushing an agenda. There isn’t actual reporting being done by Fox. They get talking points and hair models read them and show up at tea party protests to encourage regular people to show up too (OMG! I might see Glenn Beck!). That’s a different kind of agenda setting and pushing. It’s not reporting.
very reverend crimson fire of compassion
@Comrade Luke: HAH!
ajr22
@BTD: Since I don’t work in the media, all I can do is pray that the answer is no. If i have to watch him even one more time come on and act like he knows what the fuck he is talking about i might just end it all.
demo woman
@John Cole: Give us Tunch and Lily pictures or else.
General Winfield Stuck
@John Cole: GFY after you DIAF./
Seriously, the only complaint I have with BTD is it seems every argument ends in the same place where we end up arguing what the meaning of is is or parsing shit down to semantics. But I guess this is to be expected from those who argued Hillary had a case to claim the dem primary votes and delegates in Michigan and Florida were hers. As I do get tired of inspecting my own navel, this is some better, but not by much. Carry on, BTD. You are better than Makewi and some others who have graced these threads.
Midnight Marauder
@John Cole:
You know, any other time, any other person, I would probably agree with you, Cole. But let’s not forget who we are talking about here. We are talking about an individual who continuously comes to this site and typically just shits all over the Front Pagers and the commenters; unleashes tangentially unrelated nonsense argument after tangentially unrelated nonsense argument; and is so dense that it takes him 80 posts (not atypical) to understand what the point of the main post was; but only after he’s polluted the thread with 15 non-substantive, needlessly antagonistic, pithy responses.
And EVEN THEN, he still doesn’t get it, Cole. Literally, he wrote “I read it. Not sure what to make of it or your reaction” after someone told him to stop blathering on about something if he actually agreed with it. This is a level of obtuseness that the world has never seen before, man!
There is nothing credible about BTD, there is nothing legitimate about BTD’s efforts here, and there is very little to respect about BTD, beyond the obligations of common courtesy and basic human decency. But even those niceties grow to look foolish in the face of such intractable and willful ignorance.
So all I’m saying is this, and remember I’m just speaking for myself here:
Fuck that guy.
geg6
John Cole @106: Thanks for that. Perhaps because I’ve never been to OpenLeft and was not aware of the problems at GOS, I have no problem with BTD, any more than any other commenter with whom I may agree or disagree. At least he has always seemed to argue his points here reasonably. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don’t. But he always seems reasonable to me and I can’t say that about every commenter.
slag
@BTD: I would like to believe that. I really would. But John mentioned torture. That’s just one serious area that we’ve turned into a national farce. Sarah Palin was nominated for Vice President of this entire country. And people still voted for John McCain!
rootless_e
@BTD: That’s interesting. Don’t you think that Jeralyn and Jane and now McJoan are playing a similar role: validating Right Wing confabulations?
demo woman
@General Winfield Stuck: What happened to Makewi?
Max
@Rosali: Absolutely correct.
Obama can’t even go to his kids parent-teacher conference without a critical news article being written.
If he was getting blown in the Oval, especially with a white intern, scorched earth time.
Mike E
@Comrade Luke:
Uh oh, a BTD is BoB claim. I personally believe he is a passive-aggressive spoof troll perpetrated by JC. Why, I haven’t worked out yet. This can’t be good for movin’ Lily mugs, so, maybe not.
General Winfield Stuck
@demo woman: I think the brainy sewer trout over at Protein Wisdom, where he hung out, ate his ass. They like the taste of Tinkerbell over there.
slag
@BTD:
This is ridiculous. They, as individuals, are not treated the same. I already agreed with that. But their mindset–their politics-as-theater viewpoint–has now become the norm. That is why the situation would be worse. Because it’s more prevalent.
And you can argue that we’re farce-proof or whatever, but I don’t see it. If the media’s influence is on the wane, it’s being replaced by something. And whatever that something is doesn’t appear to be all that sobering.
Also, has anyone mentioned the CNN poll that says that most Americans already think Obama should be a one-term president? Yeah…we’re really improving.
demo woman
@General Winfield Stuck: lol One can hope.
freelancer
@Midnight Marauder:
“You and I, we’re as one, like two horses in the same harness.”
There have been several moments, both today and yesterday, where his confusion has had me stumped and befuddled. Thinking in self-reflection:
“WTF? Is it possible that I am being obtuse?! I don’t get what he’s not getting about what he just.fucking.said. Am I stupid? and maybe he’s playing 11-dimension chess? [looks at other commenters] Nope, he’s just kind of thick about what he thinks others mean, and isn’t too sure about what he’s saying himself. And he really hates Dennis for some reason. Odd.”
MBunge
Without making any excuses for the insane GOP bullshit of the Clinton years, I have to say that the lefty mythology that has grown up around impeachment isn’t terribly healthy.
The revelation that the CEO was fucking an intern would provoke an investigation of some sort in just about any corporation on Earth. At some companies, the fucking alone would be enough to get that CEO canned. However, using all of his corporate authority and influence to obstruct the investigation, including face-to-face lying to the board of directors, would get any and every CEO who did such things fired.
Again, not to justify any of the Republican bezerkery of the 90s, but the story is tiny bit more involved than that.
Oh, and the whole American people not caring about the Clinton thing? They didn’t care about it because they didn’t think it had any direct effect on their lives. That’s the exact same reason the American people don’t give a shit about torture. Think about it.
Mike
General Winfield Stuck
@freelancer: This, and the fact that we are one of the few lonely Fort Obots for left in the blogosphere. He is chapped about that, as some others have been. and is probing the wire, as it were. Mendacity is no vice in the fight against Obotism.
Man the keyboards and pass the Cheeto’s soldier.
slag
@MBunge:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
C’mon. You can’t be serious.
General Winfield Stuck
An analogy comparing a blow job to torture. Well, that depends on the blow job, now doesn’t it?
freelancer
@slag:
He might be, but don’t call him “C’mon”.
That’s just rude.
Gwangung
@slag: Sure he is. Any CEO who’d let that get out in the open SHOULD becanned for incompetence.
Steve R.
“From what I recall, and I followed the impeachment proceedings pretty closely, the media was every bit as venal and horrible in 1998 as they are today.”
It was, if anything, worse, because Obama retains pockets of support in the media that Clinton didn’t have – the editorial page of the Times was consistently hard on Clinton and remains generally supportive of Obama, for example.
“The thing that stood out in my mind was Mark Russel ranting during one of his “comedic” skits, to music, enraged that some poll showed the public in general didn’t share his rage that the President got a blow job.”
I remember that, too. The Clinton years were insane, just insane. Today is bad but then was worse.
slag
@Gwangung: Because boards of directors are well-known for subpoenaing blue dresses.
Rosali
No, not if the relationship was consensual and the intern proclaimed on the record that she was the aggressor and that she refused to make a complaint. It’s an extremely bad idea for the CEO to have an affair with the intern but everyone would look at the totality of the circumstances and, in your scenario, I don’t think a popular and profitable CEO would be fired.
Mike E
@General Winfield Stuck: Wow! I tip my cap, sir.
Mike, you’re quite right about the Yawning of America.
freelancer
@General Winfield Stuck:
You are not kidding. I don’t know what it is, but Susie Madrak at C&L has been driving me bugfuck the last couple days. I’ve said here before, I can’t stand her writing, but most of the other posters over there, especially Neiwert, Nicole Belle, and Amato are definitely worth it, so I keep them on my RSS.
From her posts, you would know that she is more qualified to speak on issues than any expert in the military, or the Department of Energy, or whatever the fuck happens to be the subject of her post.
/rant (but if you want more, especially over her vaccuous handringing about the Helmand Province offensive, see here.)
Johnny B
I’m happy we’re speculating about how the press would react to an impeachment today. Luckily, if the Republicans take back the House, we’ll get to find out how accurate our predictions were. So before that happens, let me state that I agree with John’s prediction that the press will be bigger pricks than in the 1990s.
indubitably
Just imagine Nancy Grace covering the Clinton impeachment. :shudder:
birthmarker
Has there been a really good book written about the Clinton debacle? Hopefully with a leftie slant? It might be fun to refresh one’s memory after so many years.
Comrade Luke
Never mind. I think it stands for Big Tent Democrat, right?
very reverend crimson fire of compassion
@Comrade Luke: Bit Tone Deaf?
But Too Dim?
Better Than Diarrhea?
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
@Comrade Luke:
I prefer Bloviating Tiresome Dipshit. If the foo shits, wear it.
BTD posts and I smell foo.
Sorry John, Armando doesn’t get a pass from me. No way and no how, not gonna do it. While he is free to post here like anyone else I will point, laugh and deride the fool when he invariably talks out of his ass while doing so. There is no way I can take anything that idiot has to say seriously, no f’ing way. I have read and seen enough of his crap over the years to know that I would rather read and seriously discuss the merits of any post by B.O.B. while a rabid dog is chewing on my nuts than treat anything BTD has to say as something seriously worth considering.
He may get a point right every now and then but you can say the same about a blind man with darts and a dart board. Sooner or later he will hit the target but you don’t want to be around while he is trying to do so.
Mnemosyne
@BTD:
I disagree with that because I think it’s much more consolidated now. In 1998, you were able to get at least a few dissenting voices get some time with the major media — Joe Conason, for example — but I think those voices would be totally shut out if it happened again. No one would be allowed to stand up and say, “Enough!”
Overall, I think you’re right that the influence of the major media has waned since those days, but it’s still more influential than you seem to think. Look at how the 24/7 teabagger coverage this summer with no dissenting voices allowed influenced the debate on healthcare.
Mike E
Sorta like: there are less workers, but productivity is up.
NeenerNeener
@Gwangung: Larry Ellison is a notorious horndog and nobody has asked for his resignation.
Didn’t another high level Oracle exec just have his face plastered all over billboards with his mistress? As far as I know, he’s still got his job, too.
The Moar You Know
@MBunge: Horseshit. It happens every day in this country, so often that there’s no point in even wasting the pixels to report on it. The CEO stays where he/she is and the intern gets packed off to a much better-paying job at a company owned by someone on the board of directors.
Find a better example. That one is just flat-out fantasy.
Citizen Alan
@BTD:
I actually wrote Larry Flynt a letter after that, thanking him for helping to save the Republic. Meant every damn word of it.
Mnemosyne
@birthmarker:
There’s The Hunting of the President, by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons. Lyons is the reporter in Arkansas who kept trying to debunk Whitewater.
Jeffrey Toobin also wrote a book about it called A Vast Conspiracy. I don’t know how lefty it is, but Toobin always gets great stuff from his fellow lawyers when he interviews them.
birthmarker
Thanks, Mnemosyne! Just ordered them both!