Unfortunately, they’re all in denial about their failure to be more, uh, journalistic. Greenwald’s been doing a series of pieces on this, but he essentially likens their ethics to stenographers–reiterating the “news” without taking on the responsibility of doing any investigating on their own. And a bit surprisingly, Katie Couric does seem the most stand-up of the 3 major anchors (with Gibson, not surprisingly, coming across the most like an unctuous tool).
Right now, it has got to be to Obama’s benefit. Unless this is some sort of not fully hatched plan by the White House, and no real reason to think it is at this point, I suspect this will make things a whole lot harder for McCain.
Sure the stuff in the book is “nothing new” to those on the left that are regular viewers of TDS/TCR or regular readers of the more Liberal blogs; or anyone who has even half-way been paying attention. However, to those in the middle and right who were still prone to give the msm, and even the WH, the benefit of the doubt; I think that grant of trust is gone. Even that last stubborn as all hell < 30% will fall even farther. It has been building even before this book, but I think John Q. Public will now watch/read the news with an even greater critical eye.
Now that will, of course, work against both candidates, in the sense that the level of distrust will be increased across the board with all parties involved in politics, pols and puns. However, I think it will be as bad for Obama as it further highlights his awareness and accurate judgement in being against the war and correct from the start.
The media in general are self serving whores. Most will increase their scrutiny across the board to save face. Considering the nonsense they have already put him through, I don’t think Obama will have greater problems in this regard. McCain however, gets defensive at even the slightest of grilling. I think he will simply not be able to handle such change. Also, as it looks more and more likely that Obama will win the general, I think they might even ease up on him so they can make inroads on those “exclusives”(see- Chris Wallace).
Of all people, I think Rove accidentally made a good point when this story broke. He said McClellon sounds like a “leftwing blogger”. I’m sure he meant it as an insult but it just goes to show clearly and undeniably who was correct and doing their jobs all along. Ironically, those that tried to dismiss the credibility of the Liberal bloggosphere as the “lunatic fringe”, for that reason, have now lost all their credibility.
This also just reinforces the “culture of corruption” label that haunted the Pugs in '06 and will be further branded upon any and all Republicans, including McCain.
I think BrainGlutton has it right though, whether they choose to acknowledge it or not, the media will likely face the greatest blowback. The rats are starting to bail, and as the water rises the real slime and scum will float to the surface and be even more exposed for what it is(they are). Last night too, Tucker upped his douchebaggery by trying to claim outrage, not on being manipulated into war, but that Bush went into Iraq because of “democratic-utopian ideals”. I just can’t believe that the public is going to buy such bullshit anymore.
Dude, that’s what they want you to think!
(We’re through the looking glass, now)
Okay, my mistake. I somehow missed that very critical ‘don’t’ in your other post. I thought you were saying he wasn’t calling a spade a spade.
No, KO has been very consistent in doing his job and holding the PTB accountable. Do you remember a story that Countdown broke in around '05 about the Pentagon denying our soldiers a functional anti-rpg system for Humvees in favor of a Raytheon contracted system that afaik to this day still doesn’t work? That was when I really started watching him; the Special Comments as important as they are, are just icing for me.
Ah, I see.
Well. Of course that dude whacked JFK, you can tell just from his picture. 
Mike Turk served as the eCampaign director for President Bush’s 2004 reelection campaign, says McClellan is catching flak for telling the truth.
“Damn, that’s not the (fill in the blank) I knew.”
What is truth?
“I will restore honesty and integrity to the White House.” ?
The poor guy’s already been forced back to repeating an old lie:
You guys are goood. Me, I guess I’ll have to read the book first before I get it figured out.
Great! Then you can tell everyone it’s old news and they should just get over it!
-Joe
Both NPR and tonight’s Daily Show quoted McClellan from 2004 when he said, about Richard Clarke’s book Against All Enemies, (paraphrasing): Why didn’t he say all these things a year and a half ago when he was still in the administration? The timing is interesting: there’s an election going on and he has a new book he’s trying to promote. And so forth.
Well it is twice now in a week that Peggy Noonan has had intelligent things to say. I think that she’s used up her allotment for the year!
I got a different view of McClellan’s expressed intent. (Whether the intent he expressed on NPR was real or a way to try to get back in the good graces of a few of his White House associates, I do not know.)
Throughout that interview he keeps trying to make the point that his honorable good ol’ boys from Texas were led astray by the persistent dishonesty of Washington.
I have no views regarding the book, but if he thinks that Rove, Bush, and the rest of the crowd lost their honesty on January 20, 2001, I have little respect for the man’s intelligence and if he is just spinning the “facts” once more, I have no reason to grant him more respect on a moral level.
I heard him this morning on C-Span. I think there is some truth in that GWB did have a shift away from how he governed Texas when he became the president but if they chose to participate in the “persistent dishonesty” of Washington doesn’t excuse any of them for their behavior. The term permanent campaign is bothersome to me. It seems to imply it’s OK to lie to get into office.
He said he ran into to Richard Clark at his hotel last night an apologized for his remarks on his book. I thought that was amusing.
Bring a big hammer down hard on your thumb.
What you’re feeling now? That’s truth. Can’t be argued away.
Not only can you evaluate the book without even having read it, you can intuit the opinion that I will espouse after I’ve read it.
Truly yours is a dizzying intellect.
Could you share with us how you’ve acquired your omniscience?
Oh, come now! You announced yourself with a perfectly empty bit of snark suggesting that we didn’t know what we were talking about, having not read the book, while you, light of wisdom that you are, were witholding your ponderous judgement until all the facts were in.
Excerpts have been online for a couple days, and the author is all over the place, outlining the views he expressed, no? We have perfectly adequate basis for our opinions on that.
I am shocked, just shocked that you would misrepresent my statement so. You, a paragon of equanimity and fair judgement.
What I had said was that I was awed by your abilities to pronounce judgement without having read the book, and that I lacked such capabilities.
How could you possibly think I was being snarky?
Yes, and I read the cliffnotes to Finnegans Wake. Perhaps you will come to my symposium on Joyce at the end of the month where I will reveal my scholarly insight.
I also saw the trailer to the New Indiana Jones movie and I would like to start a thread comparing and contrasting Spielberg’s use of the camera eye between that and Duel (I saw five minutes of Duel while switching back and forth during a commerical once.)
Afterwards perhaps take tea and discuss current events as derived from perusing the headlines while waiting on line to buy a donut at the quick-e-mart.
Afterwards, we can watch an episode of house on DVR and then go down to the local hospital and perform surgery as qualified physicians.
No snark at all, my friend. You are clearly correct and justified in your opinions, and I remain overawed by the abilities of you and yours to expound so athoritatively and make such brilliant and sweeping deductions from a mere paucity of selectively chosen evidence.
I on the other hand am a mere inferior. I need due diligence before I form opinions and claim expertise. I actually need to read books before I can judge their content. Pity me.