Recently in Media Category

As gripping in its own way as a cloak-and-dagger thriller or John Grisham procedural, Daniel Ellsberg: The Most Dangerous Man in America, by co-directors Judith Erlich and Rick Goldsmith and about the famous Rand analyst turned Pentagon Papers whistleblower, is a smart, tautly-made conjuring of recent American history that's well worth the trip. And, fortunately for me, it's also a perfect movie to contemplate and write about this President's Day.

On one hand, the film makes for an interesting moral counterpoint to The Fog of War: Ellsberg's actions put the lie to a lot of McNamara's convenient post-hoc rationalizing therein -- clearly, SecDef could've done more at the time to end the war in Vietnam.) On the other, Ellsberg also works as a prequel of sorts to All the President's Men -- to say nothing of a generation of seventies paranoia epics like The Parallax View and Three Days of the Condor. But in the end, The Most Dangerous Man in America probably works best as an eloquent testament to the words of the late Howard Zinn (who appears here as an old friend of Ellsberg): "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

Like Man on Wire, Ellsberg starts here in media res, and at the scene of the history-making crime. Furtive eyes scan back and forth as an old-school Xerox copier whirrs in the dark, its green light illuminating maps of Southeast Asia and the ominous words "Top Secret" from below. With no zip drives or electronic files to speak of, analyst Daniel Ellsberg is forced to copy the 7000 pages of the Pentagon Papers page by painstaking page. It'll take months (and eventually he enlists the aid of his kids.) As the Xerox churns, we get up-to-date on the ramifications of the document being processed -- bombs fall from the sky over North Vietnam and Cambodia, weary troops patrol the hot, fetid jungle, and Nixon and Kissinger obsess over the leaks in their war machine (with Kissinger giving Ellsberg his moniker: "the most dangerous man in America.")

Cut back to several years earlier, when the future leaker of the Pentagon Papers seemed quite a different man indeed. A fresh-faced young ex-Marine with a crisp, no-nonsense Kennedy era haircut, Ellsberg began his tenure in government as one of the Best and the Brightest, with an enthusiasm for his 80-hour workweek matched only by his hawkishness. As one of McNamara's boys, Ellsberg concedes to helping massage the data to create a casus belli for the war. His first day on the job is the Gulf of Tonkin incident that wasn't, and he spends subsequent weeks trying to dredge up some, any, horrible atrocities in the region that might involve Americans.

But, over time, the scales fall away from Ellsberg's eyes. In part because he makes the acquaintance of a luminous lefty-leaning journalist named Patricia, who eventually becomes his fiancee...twice. (Ellsberg has a great line about a guy he meets at a peace rally who's a Trotskyist. He asks this fellow how in Hell he ever became a Trotskyist. The answer: "The same way anybody becomes anything. I met a girl.") And in part because, driven with an analyst's overriding compulsion to find the right answer, he starts going to Vietnam himself to lead recon missions on the side and get a better sense of the situation on the ground. Simply put, the Ground Game is not going well.

The rest, as they say, is history. Moved to throw a shoe into the gears of the war machine he had helped nurture into existence, Ellsberg goes rogue and decides to publish the top-secret history of the war. But, even if you feel like you know the story of the Pentagon Papers pretty well, and I thought I did, there are some fresh and intriguing insights here. For example, I'm not really one for Freudianism or overthinking coincidences, but it turns out Ellsberg suffered a tragedy at the age of 15 that made him uniquely primed to play the role in history he ended up playing. (His father fell asleep at the wheel during a road trip, prompting a crash that sheared the car in two and killed Ellsberg's mother and sister. In other words, watch the authority figures at the wheel verrry carefully.)

And then there's the man himself, who's an engaging presence throughout (if perhaps with a touch of monomania -- I could see him being a hard guy to get along with.) If The Most Dangerous Man in America has a flaw, it's that the movie is quite one-sided in the end -- Ellsberg even narrates much of the story, and you get the sense at various points there may well be some whitewash being applied. (Ellsberg has an ex-wife, and kids, that aren't even mentioned for the first 45 minutes or so.) Still, I'm inclined to give Ellsberg -- and Ellsberg -- the benefit of the doubt (and not just because the man loves his movies.) Ever since George and the cherry tree, we've been smoothing the edges of our patriotic tales. And, whatever his misdeeds as a man, Daniel Ellsberg, the film makes clear, is a patriot, through and through.

I use this Cornel West quote rather often, but that doesn't make it any less true: "To understand your country, you must love it. To love it, you must, in a sense, accept it. To accept it as how it is, however is to betray it. To accept your country without betraying it, you must love it for that in it which shows what it might become. America - this monument to the genius of ordinary men and women, this place where hope becomes capacity, this long, halting turn of the no into the yes, needs citizens who love it enough to reimagine and remake it."

Daniel Ellsberg is one of those citizens. He saw an obvious crime being perpetrated by our government across multiple presidencies, and he did his part to help put a stop to it. In many ways, the story told in The Most Dangerous Man in America seems quaint: Johnson actually asked Congress for authority to bomb Vietnam? The press wasn't rolling over like a lapdog in the wake of obvious propagandistic lies? (In fact, the media types who show up late in Ellsberg clearly possess some of the narcisstic sense of self-entitlement that has been our undoing of late. Ellsberg the civilian sweats blood and tears to get this 7,000-page document out in public, and the press poobahs act like they're both the knowing gatekeepers and the heroes of the story.)

But just because Ellsberg's brand of patriotism has fallen out of fashion in the era of Judith Miller and the chattering class doesn't make this story any less relevant. It makes it more relevant. If we're going to keep our young republic through its third century, we need more men and women of Ellsberg's stripe. Men and women who will buck the trend, risk the ridicule and wrath of their well-connected peers, and stand up against injustice done under our collective name when they are party to it.

Presidents will get their due on this and every subsequent Presidents Day to come. But, now and again, it's good to honor those patriots who, through non-violent principle and sheer, dogged determination, help to keep our leaders in check when the separation of powers fails -- ordinary folks like you, me, and Daniel and Patricia Elllsberg.

"Debate on the question of money and politics has been percolating within the ACLU for years, long before the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Citizens United. 'It is difficult to think of an issue that has generated more internal controversy,' an internal ACLU memo states."

To its credit and as a result of the Citizens United decision (which the organization has previously lawyered and lobbied for), the ACLU convenes a weekend summit to discuss its campaign finance reform position. "'The ACLU's version of democracy is from the ground-up,' one civil rights lawyer, David Gans, told the ACLU's board, which was assembled downtown at One New York Plaza. 'Now Exxon Mobil can spend 2% of its money and blow that all up.'"

Here's hoping the reformers win the day -- or walk out CIO-style if they don't. Imho, the stance that unlimited corporate funding of our elections is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment has always been the Achilles' heel of an otherwise superb organization. I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I can tell, their reasoning relies on two unfortunate bugs in the legal code -- corporate personhood and the conflation of money with speech -- that they too often deem fundamental First Amendment principles. I would argue they're not.

For why the former -- corporate personhood -- has obvious problems, just read Justice Stevens' dissent from Thursday:

"The basic premise underlying the Court's ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker's identity, including its 'identity; as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law....

Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."

For the latter -- the ruinous conflation of money and speech in Buckley v. Valeo -- check out Stevens' concurrence in Nixon v. Shrink Government Pact (2000), where he says how he'd come down if Buckley were reopened:

"In response to [Justice Kennedy's] call for a new beginning, therefore, I make one simple point. Money is property; it is not speech.

Speech has the power to inspire volunteers to perform a multitude of tasks on a campaign trail, on a battleground, or even on a football field. Money, meanwhile, has the power to pay hired laborers to perform the same tasks. It does not follow, however, that the First Amendment provides the same measure of protection to the use of money to accomplish such goals as it provides to the use of ideas to achieve the same results...

Telling a grandmother that she may not use her own property to provide shelter to a grandchild -- or to hire mercenaries to work in that grandchild's campaign for public office -- raises important constitutional concerns that are unrelated to the First Amendment."

But somewhere along the line and for whatever reason, the ACLU latched on to both of these unwise shibboleths, and have since been arguing that corporate personhood and the idea of money as speech are both enshrined in the First Amendment. Uh...really?

To see what kind of damage these two bogus ideas have wrought, one need only to go over to Salon and read through Glenn Greenwald's ugly meltdown on Citzens United the past few days. As anyone who visits GitM regularly knows, I link to Greenwald pretty much constantly. On a host of issues, from Obama's terrible record on civil liberties to the broken-down state of our journalism, he's been remarkably on point, and one of my favorite columnists to read. I used to wonder if there was anything I disagreed with him on. Well, it turns out, there is. And, apparently, I'm a "partisan hack" for thinking different.

For the Cliff Notes version of this whole conversation, I wrote up a snarky summation of it here yesterday, well after things had gone south. But, basically, Glenn -- on "homework assignment" -- argued on Friday that, all the negative consequences that will ensue aside, the Majority in Citizen's United decided the case correctly, that this was a victory for the first amendment, and that people who disagree with their decision are practicing "outcome-based law." (He also made the dubious and unprovable assertion that things can't get any worse anyway. Really? We'll see.)

Well, this assessment did not sit right with a lot of people. Some questioned his reading of the case. Others pointed out that law is always outcome-based, even the Majority's ruling in Citizens. (The concerned outcome for Justice Kennedy here is that blogs might get banned someday, somehow, if this ruling isn't made. I'll take my chances.) And, others, such as myself, questioned these two principles -- corporations are people, money is speech -- that the ruling was based on.

Well, suffice to say, Greenwald did not take criticism well. He adamantly refused to engage either notion -- money isn't speech, corporations aren't people -- as having any merit whatsoever, eventually trying to write off both with some dubious 1L hypotheticals. (All were answered to his disadvantage, several times over.) He went on to ridicule the folks who disagreed with him in a "check out the Big Brain on me" kinda way. (He argued his lawyerly creds just means he knows better.) He ignored Stevens' actual dissent throughout. And he accused folks of being just like Dubya on torture for deigning to disagree with him on the decision.

This embarrassing conceit -- those with disagree with me are Dubyaites, end of story -- formed the extraordinarily condescending introduction of Greenwald's follow-up to his first post. Still ignoring the legitimate criticisms people were making of the two assertions above -- money=speech and corporations=people, Glenn instead pulled one line from Justice Stevens' ninety pages of dissent to argue that all nine Justices agreed with both of these propositions. (This even though both Ginsburg and Sotomayor questioned the corporate personhood idea in oral arguments, and that Stevens explicitly said he did not agree with the money=speech proposition in Nixon v. Shrink, an argument Glenn would not touch.) As it turns out, the one line Glenn pulled from Stevens' dissent proved neither assertion. Nonetheless, he returned to his shell, refusing to even consider the notion that "money=speech" or "corporations=people" might be lousy interpretations or legal accidents, or that they aren't necessarily covered by the First Amendment.

When I shared the above ACLU story this morning, Greenwald blew another gasket:

The ACLU has a long history of standing up to and defying people [like] you: those who pretend to believe in the Constitution and civil liberties only when it can be used as a weapon to advance your partisan and political agenda.

If they didn't reverse themselves on the First Amendment rights of Nazis in the wake of huge numbers of people like you (those who only believe in the Constitution when it suits them) cutting off funding and leaving the organization, I highly doubt they will do so now....

But what has made the ACLU such an important and unique organization is that they have stood their ground on principle and resisted the efforts of people like you to turn it into a partisan tool rather than an organization devoted to the Constitution."

I guess he figured I'd forget what "people like me" means from paragraph to paragraph. And, yes, y'all, I've been writing on politics and progressivism here for ten years because I've always wanted to subvert the Constitution to my own ends. And I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for that nasty Greenwald!

Anyway, when I then reminded Greenwald that people of principle can disagree on these issues, and that it may even be possible that the ACLU reformers might even be the right ones in this story, that's when I got called an Orwellian partisan hack once more. (FWIW, here's my kissoff. I particularly like "paddock of principle and certitude.")

Throughout this whole back-and-forth, there was not even the remotest possibility that any other interpretation on these two questions had merit for Greenwald: Corporations have first amendment rights. Money is speech. Both are obviously enshrined in the First Amendment. And arguing anything else is ridiculous and deserving of scorn (even if Supreme Court justices have argued differently in the past, including as recently as Thursday.) So let it be written, so let it be done.

Uh...really? Who knows...perhaps it's a lawyer thing. Nonetheless, this myopic, bullish way of thinking -- I hold the only correct possible interpretation of the law, and you're either with me or you're with the Dubyaites -- isn't very satisfying on either personal or argumentative grounds. And Greenwald's constant doubling down on his original argument, even as more and more holes were poked in it by various responders, makes me question not only his temperament but his writing in general. He usually provides a valuable public service, no doubt, but he seems to have bought into his own hype as an Incorruptible Defender of Liberty. If you can't think outside of yourself once in awhile, or find some way to weigh arguments you may not necessarily agree with without deeming them unprincipled, you're really not much use to anyone.

Update: Looks like Greenwald addressed this topic one more time this morning. Here's what he said:

"'Money is not speech' is an idiot bumper sticker slogan, not a meaningful argument which resolves anything. 'Corporations have no constitutional rights' is such an extreme and dangerous position (it endorses the constitutionality of the FBI's searching whatever corporate offices they want and seizing all corporate documents with no search warrants or probable cause, or the Congress' imposing $10 million fines on corporations every time they criticize the government, among other things) that it's frivolous in the extreme. Despite that, I spent substantial time all weekend addressing and responding to those frivolous bumper sticker slogans."

So there you have it. An "idiot bumper sticker slogan"...repeated verbatim by Justice Stevens in 2000. (And, for what it's worth, Greenwald referred to civil rights lawyer David Kairys' piece on these two questions, linked several times above, as "stupid and ill-informed.") Class act, Glenn.

"The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). Relying largely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law...The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution."

Well, it was a nice republic while it lasted. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court finally hands down its Citzens United verdict, and it is ugly. [Full Text] Basically, the distinction between corporations and individuals has been erased, and, by the already dubious proposition that money is speech, unlimited corporate expenditures in campaigns is now just good, old-fashioned government. Welcome to the new Lochner era, y'all.

By the way, this is a much, much bigger deal than Scott Brown or the effing Edwards baby. Not that you'd know that from watching the news right now.

Update: More reactions:

Fred Wertheimer, Democracy 21: "Today's Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case is a disaster for the American people and a dark day for the Supreme Court...With a stroke of the pen, five Justices wiped out a century of American history devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy."

Bob Edgar, Common Cause: "The Roberts Court today made a bad situation worse. This decision allows Wall Street to tap its vast corporate profits to drown out the voice of the public in our democracy. The path from here is clear: Congress must free itself from Wall Street's grip so Main Street can finally get a fair shake."

Robert Weissman, Public Citizen: "Shed a tear for our democracy...Money from Exxon, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer and the rest of the Fortune 500 is already corroding the policy making process in Washington, state capitals and city halls. Today, the Supreme Court tells these corporate giants that they have a constitutional right to trample our democracy."

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI): "[T]his decision was a terrible mistake. Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns. Just six years ago, the Court said that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns was 'firmly embedded in our law.' Yet this Court has just upended that prohibition, and a century's worth of campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in government. The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections."

President Obama: "With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less."

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick: "Even former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist once warned that treating corporate spending as the First Amendment equivalent of individual free speech is 'to confuse metaphor with reality.' Today that metaphor won a very real victory at the Supreme Court. And as a consequence some very real corporations are feeling very, very good."

"Parliament has collapsed. The tax office has collapsed. Schools have collapsed. Hospitals have collapsed." Haiti reels after a devastating 7.3 earthquake that may well have claimed thousands of lives. What a horrible nightmare...and it kinda puts the past week of idiotic Beltway yammering about Harry Reid's vernacular and the Edwards' bad behavior in perspective, doesn't it? Real news please. [How to help.][How not to help.]

"The 'death panel' episode shows how the news media, after aiding and abetting falsehood, were unable to perform their traditional role of reporting the facts. By lavishing uncritical attention on the most exaggerated claims and extreme behavior, they unleashed something that the truth could not dispel." In the NYT, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) reviews the sad, sordid tale of Death Panel fear-mongering by the GOP this past summer.

In very related news, it seems the Republican National Committee's health insurance plan, contra all their rhetoric on Stupak, has not only covered abortion services for the past eighteen years -- it includes end-of-life counseling, a.k.a. the "Death Panels" of Sarah Palin's nightmares. These folks really have no shame.

"During the discussion, Clinton told his vice president that he was disappointed that Gore had not used him in the last ten days of the 2000 campaign in strategically significant states -- Arkansas, Tennessee, New Hampshire, and Missouri...Clinton insisted to Gore that he hadn't cared about how Gore had referred to Clinton -- and his personal scandal -- during the campaign. Paraphasing this portion of the conversation, Branch writes that Clinton told Gore, 'To gain votes, he would let Gore cut off his ear and mail it to reporter Michael Isikoff of Newsweek, the Monica Lewinsky expert.'"

In Mother Jones, David Corn previews some of the interesting tales disclosed in historian Taylor Branch's forthcoming The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President. "In 1997, after New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote an acerbic column about Clinton and golfer Tiger Woods -- maintaining that the the two green-eyed hucksters deserved each other -- Clinton told Branch, 'She must live in mortal fear that there's somebody in the world living a healthy and productive life.'"

More recent signs of the freefall of journalistic integrity in the Beltway:

* Marc Ambinder, a thoroughly lousy blogging "journalist" in the Atlantic stable, chalks up prescient criticism of the Bush administration's gaming of security alerts as solely the result of liberal fringe-hippy "gut hatred." Says Ambinder in a burst of CYA blather: "Information asymmetry is always going to exist, and, living as we do in a Democratic system, most journalists are going to give the government the benefit of some doubt, even having learned lessons about giving the government that benefit." Way to speak truth to power, Marc. In other words, suck-up, spit-down, and let's not let the facts -- or god forbid, any attempted acts of daily journalism -- get in the way of our obsequious administration boot-licking.

FWIW, after getting roundly slammed for this ridiculous understanding of what constitutes journalism, Ambinder walked back his comments...some. (It hasn't caused him to deviate from his usual m.o., however, which is acting as stenographer to people in power and parsing the day's news to find that exact comfortable midpoint where the CW resides. And sadly,he's not even the worst blogger over at the Atlantic -- that would be the former Jane Galt, Megan McArdle.)

* TIME's Joe Klein has been on a bit of a losing streak lately. Ostensibly a "liberal" -- at least the Village's town crier, Howard Kurtz, considers him one -- Klein is, like Ambinder and so many other of his ostensibly lefty pundit colleagues -- really just an establishmentarian. He rolls over for the powerful and spends most of his copy and television appearances simply honing his "I'm a lefty, but I'm one of the sane ones" schtick. Take any given issue, look over Klein's output, and you'll usually find him, a la Howard Fineman, staking out that comfortable middle where roadkill dies and TV pundits thrive. (Most recent case in point: health care reform, where's he's for...something...but lately could really take or leave that goofy public option.)

Anyway, Klein recently made the mistake of mouthing off about those crazy lefties, and particularly Glenn Greenwald -- whom he weirdly deems a "civil liberties absolutist" -- in front of a very able blogger (and in a bit of grand historical irony, the granddaughter of I.F. Stone), who cut him short in hilarious fashion. Klein then took his anti-Greenwald crusade to Journolist, where his angry screeds and troubles with facts didn't seem particularly well-received either.

So, now Klein has taken to ranting on Swampland about his recent troubles. Arguing that Greenwald indulges in "intemperate attacks in which he questions the character of -- no, it's worse than that: he slimes -- anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him," Klein also deems Aimai, the aforementioned partygoer/blogger, a "rather pathetic woman acolyte of Greenwald" -- a bit intemperate, don'tcha think? As for Greenwald himself, Klein considers him "thoroughly dishonorable," as well as -- I kid you not -- insufficiently pro-military. "I have never seen him write a positive sentence about the US military," Klein declaims, a paragraph or so before he admits that "I am not a religious reader of Greenwald."

Now, putting aside whether Klein's blatant and bizarre Cheneyism is true -- it isn't -- as well as Klein's self-evident buffoonery here, how would penning enthusiastic copy about the US armed forces be in any way a reasonable evaluator of journalistic integrity? It's like these pundits have so talked themselves into ignoring the grotesquely under-reported Pentagon pundit scandal that they're starting to believe their own talking points. Screaming "You don't love the troops!!" is a naked and craven attempt at ad hominem obfuscation pretty much every time a politician engages in it. But coming from the pen of a journalist, and a purported "lefty" one at that, it's just plain ridiculous.

(By the way, Greenwald's own thoughts on this are here, although the Swampland commenters do just as solid a job of eviscerating Klein for this disastrous posting. As does Aimai the Acolyte, who in her response gets in this certifiable zinger: "He's not a public intellectual -- he's a f**king wind sock. And he knows it.")

* Moving to another purported lefty of the establishment press, calling out the WP's Richard Cohen for dim reasoning and faulty logic these days is like calling the sky blue -- it's just the way it is. Nevertheless, his piece on torture today was particularly vile, and it's a textbook case of two standard operating Beltway-pundit presumptions, also witnessed in the cases of Ambinder and Klein: [1] Establishment journalists are exceedingly special people, and [2] the height of wisdom is always to be found in the exact middle-of-the-road.

To take point one first, Cohen frets about Attorney General Holder's new weaksauce-as-intended inquiry into CIA torture because of the outrageous and despicable violations of civil liberties committed upon...Judith Miller. He writes: "Special prosecutors are often themselves like interrogators -- they don't know when to stop. They go on and on because, well, they can go on and on. One of them managed to put Judith Miller of The New York Times in jail -- a wee bit of torture right there." Uh, no.

A few years after getting absolutely played by the powers-that-be and reporting lies about the existence of WMD in Iraq in the paper of record, NYT reporter Judith Miller spent three months in a comparatively nice prison cell because she refused to testify in the Plame investigation about one of those very same powerful people, Scooter Libby. Now, however you feel about what happened with Ms. Miller, she was not tortured. She was not waterboarded dozens or hundreds of times. She was not tortured for refusing to assert a false positive. She was never given the Room 101 treatment. And she did not die in our custody. So that truly bizarre analogy breaks down pretty quickly.

Even more irritating, however, is the hemming-and-hawing, "pox on both your houses" attempt at moderation Cohen tries to employ through the rest of this piece. "This business of what constitutes torture is a complicated matter. It is further complicated by questions about its efficacy: Does it sometimes work? Does it never work? Is it always immoral? What about torture that saves lives? What if it saves many lives? What if one of those lives is your child's?" Cohen asks these questions as if they're unanswerable profundities...or as if all of the considerable data showing torture is completely ineffective does not exist.

Then he plays the 24 game: "Ah yes, the interrogator must build rapport with the captured terrorist. That might work, but it would take time. It could take a lot of time." Again, Cohen ignores the fact that the ticking-time-bomb scenario is a comic book fantasy with absolutely no application to the real world.

And he saves his worst for last: Torture, Cohen writes, "cannot be the subject of an ideological tug of war, both sides taking extreme and illogical positions -- torture never works, torture always works, torture is always immoral, torture is moral if it saves lives. Torture always is ugly. So, though, is the hole in the ground where the World Trade Center once stood. " Did you catch that? Before Cohen took us to commercial with a resounding chorus of 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, he deemed that "torture never works" and "torture is always immoral" are now "extreme and illogical positions," right on a par with "torture always works." Say what?

It is exactly these types of false equivalencies, usually fostered by columnists these days to CYA and prostrate before power, that is killing what's left of journalistic integrity in the Beltway. For some reason or another -- most likely so as not to lose their privileged place of influence in the hive -- "journalists" like Ambinder, Klein, and Cohen seem to think it's their job finding, and then reporting from, the safe, non-threatening and perfectly vanilla midpoint between opposing political sides. The whole "holding up claims to independent, verifiable facts" aspect of journalism is a completely lost art among far too many of today's pundit class. It gets in the way of their lazy sense of entitlement, I guess, and I'm sure it really cuts back on the talking out of one's ass on TV for a living.

Put another way, it's Paul Begala's "Neil Armstrong principle all over again: "If John McCain and Sarah Palin were to say the moon was made of green cheese, we can be certain that Barack Obama and Joe Biden would pounce on it, and point out it's actually made of rock. And you just know the headline in the paper the next day would read: 'CANDIDATES CLASH ON LUNAR LANDSCAPE.'"

For all of Ambinder, Klein, and Cohen's many faults, the problem with establishment journalism today is bigger than any of them -- they're just useful case studies in a diseased system. The values ostensibly undergirding the punditocracy -- speak truth to power; check your sources, resort to facts; have some clue what you're talking about -- have been corrupted, and the whole rotten enterprise is now in an advanced state of decay. (For yet another example, see MSNBC's Chuck Todd, who -- as soon as he moved up a few pegs in the Beltway regime -- started laughing off torture investigations as cable news "catnip.")

This long post may just read like sarcastic score-settling, but this is no small matter. The desiccated values and m.o. of today's Beltway pundit class are helping to kill off health care reform. They're helping Dubya-era criminals get away with torture. And they're going to derail any meaningful attempts at systemic political reform in the future...unless we start holding their feet to the fire. A republic needs no courtiers -- it damn well needs good journalists.

The story of our journalistic establishment over the past thirty years is basically Bob Woodward, writ large: Beltway journalists and pundits used to challenge the politicians in power and serve as the public's vital and necessary watchdogs. Now, like any old mutt, far too many just want to sit next to the masters, bark at those who would deign to threaten them, and try to get rewarded for their servility with an occasional scratch behind the ears. This will not do.

"So the birthers, the anti-tax tea-partiers, the town hall hecklers -- these are 'either' the genuine grass roots or evil conspirators staging scenes for YouTube?...They are both. If you don't understand that any moment of genuine political change always produces both, you can't understand America, where the crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy, and where elites exploit the crazy for their own narrow interests."

In the WP, historian Rick Perlstein puts the latest incarnation of the stark raving right-wing in historical perspective. The difference this time? The media is completely failing at its job. "The tree of crazy is an ever-present aspect of America's flora. Only now, it's being watered by misguided he-said-she-said reporting and taking over the forest. Latest word is that the enlightened and mild provision in the draft legislation to help elderly people who want living wills -- the one hysterics turned into the 'death panel' canard -- is losing favor, according to the Wall Street Journal, because of 'complaints over the provision.' Good thing our leaders weren't so cowardly in 1964, or we would never have passed a civil rights bill -- because of complaints over the provisions in it that would enslave whites."

The woeful state of American political journalism, in a nutshell (and in two parts):

1. CNN and WP media poobah Howard Kurtz, on Twitter today: "Booking hell: All pundits are in the Hamptons or Vineyard. Intelligent discourse apparently ceasing."

2. CNBC to Teabaggers today: Can you guys please stage us a really violent rally? "We have a media request for an event this week that will have lots of energy and lots of anger. This is for CNBC."

So. Broken.

"We all make mistakes. We know we make mistakes. I don't know any military commander, who is honest, who would say he has not made a mistake. There's a wonderful phrase: 'the fog of war.' What "the fog of war" means is: war is so complex it's beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend all the variables. Our judgment, our understanding, are not adequate. And we kill people unnecessarily." -- Robert McNamara, 1916-2009

"What do I regret? Well, I regret that in our attempt to establish some standards, we didn't make them stick. We couldn't find a way to pass them on to another generation." -- Walter Cronkite, 1916-2009.

So, the big political story of the week: the strange disappearance and eventual mea culpa of my home state governor. As I said here, I try to avoid posting on sex scandals as much as possible -- In a perfect world, all of this private behavior would be off the table for both parties. Still, regarding this imbroglio, my feeling about his press conference yesterday was very akin to Gary Kamiya's at Salon: "[T]his was not another blow-dried, prefab confession. It was unscripted. It was so intimate it was almost unwatchable."

Now, I disagree with Gov. Sanford quite a bit politically, obviously. I was impressed by his op-ed on Obama during the SC primary last year, but he lost a lot of goodwill with me with his grandstanding on stimulus funds a few months ago. Regardless, whatever the moral hypocrisy and dereliction of duty involved in this case, it's just sad to see a guy so obviously lost in the wilderness of amour fou. For whatever reason, he didn't have the usual politician's armor on at all yesterday, and it was painful to watch somebody writhing on the horns of a dilemma of the heart so publicly. He screwed up, big time, and his behavior is indefensible on several levels. Still, I have to admit, I sorta feel for the guy. (And, while I think John Dickerson's recent hectoring in Slate was a bit much -- particularly since he usually revels in the manufactured controversies and studied glibness that characterize so much useless political coverage these days -- to my mind nobody deserves the godawful nightmare of having one's mash notes published for all to see. That's just a special kind of Hell.)

"That's why this Froomkin firing is so revealing. The fact that one of the very few people to practice real adversarial journalism in the Bush era was decreed not to be a real 'journalist' -- and has now been fired by the Post -- is one of the most illustrative episodes of the past several years regarding what the real function of the establishment media is." Glenn Greenwald, Paul Krugman, Steve Benen, and Andrew Sullivan, among others, respond with justifiable outrage to the WP's recent firing of Dan Froomkin.

What they said. So, let me get this straight: Froomkin -- a guy who's spoken-truth-to-power during both the Bush and Obama administrations, and who's been one of the few "killer apps" in the WP's dwindling journalistic arsenal -- is shown the door while paleolithic dinosaurs like Charles Krauthammer are still on the payroll? Riiiight. Particularly in light of the death spiral of academia, it's just plain depressing to watch the establishment media burn away its last vestiges of integrity these days. It's just not a good time for people of the writerly persuasion, no matter how you cut it.

Update: "When I look back on the Bush years, I think of the lies. There were so many." Froomkin signs off.

"How absurd is that? Let us count the ways. First, even when the most establishment 'journalists' such as Rosen get caught engaging in patently irresponsible behavior, they still find a way to blame blogs rather than themselves (I thought I was just blogging, and reckless gossip is what bloggers do.) It wasn't blogs that "reported" Saddam Hussein's acquisition of scary aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons or that Iraq was behind the anthrax attacks; it wasn't blogs that glorified Jessica Lynch's nonexistent heroic firefight with Iraqi goons; it wasn't blogs that turned John Edwards into The Breck Girl and John Kerry into a "French-looking" weakling; and it wasn't blogs that presented retired military generals who were participating in a Pentagon propaganda program and saddled with countless undisclosed conflicts as 'independent analysts.'"

Call it the State of Play fallacy: After TNR's Jeffrey Rosen blames "blogging" for the obviously poor quality of his recent Sotomayor hit piece -- and vows never to blog again -- Salon's inimitable Glenn Greenwald sets the record straight about what can and can't be pinned on bloggers. "Despite his efforts to blame 'blogging' for what he did, Rosen didn't use journalistically reckless methods to smear Sotomayor's intellect because of some inherent attribute of the medium. Instead, he did that because...that's how the establishment media typically functions: 'background reporting from people with various axes to grind, i.e. standard Washington reporting.'" (And, for what it's worth, Rosen's original article was hardly what you'd call blogging anyway -- it was just a lengthy piece that ran online.)

As per the norm of late, I seem to be well behind on both my movie-watching and movie-reviewing these days. (It's been awhile since Watchmen.) In an attempt to rectify the former, at least, I hit up the multiplex a few weekends ago with a decision to make. Eventually, and based mainly on which projected path would involve the least amount of downtime between shows, I decided to forsake an Apatow-ish afternoon with the old Freaks & Geeks gang (I Love You, Man, Adventureland, Observe and Report -- still haven't seen any of those) in favor of the latest batch of conspiracy-minded thrillers. Well, at least one of 'em was worth it.

First up was Tony Gilroy's frothy but entertaining Duplicity, a tongue-firmly-in-cheek, corporate espionage rom-com of sorts that sadly didn't make much of a splash at the box office. After a meet-cute in Dubai involving MI-6 agent Ray Koval (Clive Owen) and CIA asset Claire Stenwick (Julia Roberts), we cut to rival cosmetics company CEO's Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson going mano-a-mano like it's Paris in 1778. Both looking for a leg up in the cutthroat world of shampoo, hand cremes, and lotions -- not to mention a chance to roundly humiliate the other in corporate combat -- these two masters of the universe have invested enough into their respective espionage and counter-intelligence departments (run by Milk/Michael Clayton's Denis O'Hare and writer-director Tom McCarthy respectively) to make Mossad blush.

Enter (once again) top-notch professional spies Ray and Claire, who discover they've both been hired by Giamatti's intel outfit years after their earlier falling-out in Saudi Arabia. Will these two photogenic spooks be able to bury the hatchet long enough to fulfill their mission objective of screwing over Wilkinson good? Or was that particular hatchet perhaps buried on an earlier Roman holiday? As you might imagine from a movie called Duplicity (by the writer of the Bourne films, no less), nothing is what it seems at first. And most everyone, not the least our two protagonists, is playing more than a few angles.

Blessed with charismatic performances from its two leads -- I don't usually cotton to Julia Roberts much, but she's fine here -- Duplicity is a jaunty bit of fun that mainly works because it doesn't take itself too seriously. Sure, the wheels-within-wheels of the plot don't quite always catch -- They're often contrived and sometimes needlessly convoluted. (If anyone out there saw the movie, could you explain what the significance of the marked bench was? I missed it.) And some of the setpieces definitely take too long, and don't make much sense regardless. (See for example, the hunting-for-a-fax-machine sequence, which even the characters eventually call out as ludicrous.) But Duplicity gets away with much of this because it's so goofy and good-natured about it all. If the cosmetics angle didn't tip you off from jump street, the stakes of the game here are purposely hokey and overwrought -- People talk about the MacGuffin here, a possible cure for baldness, like it's the Ark of the Covenant.

In the end, Duplicity is probably 15-20 minutes too long, its final couple of twists are pretty easy to see coming, and the film then spends too much time showing us all the myriad details we could've worked out on our own. But it's an amiable production through and through, and there are worse ways to spend two hours than watching Owen and Roberts sally sharp-edged barbs back-and-forth, debate the economic possibilities of frozen pizza, and occasionally tumble into the sack. At the very least, I didn't leave Duplicity feeling cheated.

Which brings us to Kevin MacDonald's State of Play, a movie that was sorely lacking the state-of-play that exuded from every soap-scrubbed pore of Duplicity. No, this is a Big Serious Film, about Big Serious Issues, like Sinister Political Corruption and the Decline of Newspapers and such. Now, I unfortunately missed the original BBC miniseries version of this tale, but from the cast alone (John Simm, Kelley MacDonald, Bill Nighy, Marc Warren, James McAvoy, Polly Walker) I have to bet it's pretty good. But, as far as this American retelling goes, I found State of Play thoroughly ham-handed, mostly unbelievable, and often risible.

Darkness sets in early in State of Play, as the film begins with two seemingly unrelated deaths in our nation's capital. First, a homeless bagsnatcher is hunted down in Georgetown and -- conspiracy alert -- executed with a ruthless, professional precision. Then, a comely Capitol Hill aide falls in front of a subway train in the middle of morning rush hour. (DC-area folks might find themselves pondering why said aide walked through Dupont Circle and Adams-Morgan to board a train over in Roslyn, Virginia. Everyone else will just wonder why the fact she fell in a small security camera "blind spot" is so important when there had to have been several dozen eye-witnesses at the scene.)

We are then introduced to gruff, slovenly beat writer with a heart-of-gold Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe), who lumbers around the rest of the movie like a newspaperman out of Sesame Street -- he not only knows every single working-class-joe in the District, but they all seem to want to do him favors. The yin to McAffrey's yang over at the Washington Globe is Della Frye (Rachel McAdams), the smart, attractive, but unfortunately surface-skimming blogger at the new online desk. McAffrey and Frye are assigned to cover the two murders for the Globe respectively, but there's a catch. For the dead aide, it turns out, happened to be having an affair with her boss, the up-and-comer Rep. Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck), who was currently leading a congressional investigation into Pointcorp, a Blackwater-style private military contractor.

What's more, Rep. Collins was once none-other-than newsman McAffrey's college roommate, and, complicating matters even further, both have shared the attentions of the congressman's wife (Robin Wright Penn). Will Cal use his journalistic pull to smooth things over for his two old friends in the press? Will Della be able to renounce her bloggeriffic tendency to wallow in scandalous ephemera and find the real story buried here? And, when it comes out that the murders are inevitably linked and that there's something very Dark and Troubling going on in the corridors of Washington, will Cal take Della under his wing and find a way to make her a "real" journalist? I mean, that's how Dad did it, that's how America does it, and it's worked out pretty well so far.

Even with Brad Pitt and Ed Norton, who were originally cast as McAffrey and Collins respectively, gone from this production, State of Play has all the marks of a Big Important Film, including respected name actors popping up all over the place. The supremely talented Helen Mirren is passable as the hard-nosed, tough-talking editor/doyenne of the Globe, but she isn't done any favors by the script, which keeps forcing her into goofy, Prime Suspect-style exclamations of Britishness. Jeff Daniels has some fun as a smarmy, probably-Republican Senator ("Don't use the Lord's name in vain around me"), David Harbour of Revolutionary Road shows up as our slightly-off-kilter Deep Throat, Harry Lennix and Best Supporting Actress nominee Viola Davis briefly play a detective and coroner respectively, and Jason Bateman just about walks away with the film as an oily club promoter caught in the middle of all the shenanigans. (He plays it broad, and seems to be the only person involved who recognized what a B-movie this is.)

But even all the talent on-screen can't save State of Play from its very significant flaws. For one, the film clearly purports to be a paean to investigative journalism a la All the President's Men, but the conspiracy that drives the story is outlandish in several ways. Basically -- moderate spoilers here -- it involves corporate and para-military thugs at the Blackwater outfit doing whatever is required to achieve their ultimate goal of "privatizing national security." Now, I have no doubt that Blackwater and its ilk are shady as they come. And -- given everything we've seen from them as lawless mercenaries in Iraq -- it doesn't take an extreme suspension of disbelief to envision a fictional Blackwater doing what they do here, engaging in under-the-table wetworks to protect some sizable market share.

But, and this is where the movie began to lose me, I'm not at all convinced that the Bad Guys here would even have to break the law as currently written to achieve their ultimate goal, and they definitely wouldn't have to go to the sordid lengths suggested in State of Play. Maybe it's news to the good people at the Washington Globe, but corruption has been effectively legalized for awhile now in DC. Why would Pointcorp be involved in such nefarious black-bag operations to ensure their pound-of-flesh profit margins, when they can just spread some money around legally and accomplish much the same objective? After awhile, I found the spy shenanigans here about as plausible as those of the evil soap corporations in Duplicity. (Honestly, did the writers not hear of Halliburton? They were bagging enormously lucrative no-bid military contracts for years the old-fashioned way.)

This brings me to my other major problem with State of Play -- its depiction of journalism and what ails it. But, before I move on -- and I'll tread lightly here -- State of Play makes a turn very late in the game that completely subverts the All the President's Men conspiracy argument it's been making up to then anyway, and it basically lets the air out of the entire movie. You can't have it both ways, y'all.

Moving on, as most every single review will tell you, State of Play closes with a loving montage of each stage in the process of making a daily newspaper -- the type being set, the rolls of paper being loaded, etc. etc. (They skip over all the crucial cutting-down-trees and paper-mill parts, of course -- Let's not get in the way of nostalgia.) And, yes, State of Play is very conspicuously crafted as a heartfelt ode to the newspaper industry in twilight, as mainly evidenced by the narrative tug between "good" journalist Cal, who pounds the beat relentlessly and tracks down every possible lead, and "bad" blogger Della, who -- at first -- opines without all the facts at her disposal and dishes out snark by the shovelful. (But don't worry, it turns out she's very trainable.)

Now, I posted briefly on this last month, but there are a lot of reasons newspapers are going under right now -- market pressures, obviously, but also over-consolidation, a decline in local-area coverage, papers following the cable TV herds into surface-skimming irrelevance. And, for an equally loving, but more resonant critique of why it's happening, I'd direct you to Season 5 of David Simon's The Wire. As Simon says here: "In every episode, what's being depicted is a newspaper that's actually not connecting with the problems that exist on the ground. It's not noticing that the police department has been cheating stats for years and making crime go away. It's not noticing that the third grade test scores are being hyped so that No Child Left Behind is not exposed for what it is. That's the critique, and very tellingly, almost perfectly, I think, with the exception of maybe one or two guys out there, everybody missed it." Or, as Simon's Gus Haynes puts it at one point when dissecting newspaper's Pulitzer-hungry mentality: "It's like you're up on the corner of a roof and you're showing some people how a couple of shingles came loose, and meanwhile a hurricane wrecked the rest of the damn house."

Now, whatever you think of this critique, notice it doesn't have much if anything to do with bloggers. Ok, sure, the blogging mentality spilling over into "real" journalism perhaps hasn't helped matters any -- I said as much here. But the idea that the Della Fryes of the world -- or Ana Marie Coxes, if you want to bring it home -- are the main reason newspapers are in trouble right now, or the main reason newspapers miss the "real" conspiracies in our midst, is so facile as to be insulting.

State of Play tells a story of a "good" journalist at a "good" DC newspaper uncovering sordid scandal and "bad" corruption at the highest levels of government, all the while making a "good" protege out of a "bad" blogger. Well, sure, it's a nice fairy tale, but let's get real. I don't remember bloggers having anything to do with Judith Miller, the NYT, and every other newspaper of note enabling Dubya's whole fake-WMD fiasco in 2002 and 2003. I don't remember bloggers telling the NYT to sit on the illegal and warrantless wiretaps story for an entire year, and an election year at that. I don't remember bloggers convincing the likes of Bob Woodward or Tim Russert to circle the wagons around Scooter Libby when he outed Valerie Plame. And I definitely don't remember bloggers encouraging the establishment media to declare Dubya-era torture a non-issue that we all need to just get over, in the name of a false "looking forward" reconciliation based on willfully ignoring illegality, corruption, lies, and moral atrocities.

So, thanks for the civics lesson, State of Play, but I'm not sure I can hold those wretched, superficial bloggers entirely accountable for the decline of paper-and-ink newspapers these days. Look, I'm as sorry to see journalism in the woeful financial state it's in as the next guy. But -- when it comes to enabling and cooperating with manifestly corrupt behavior in Washington -- y'all might want to look at your own hands too. Not all of those stains are ink.

"'It's the deepest kind of corruption,' said a recently retired longtime national security official who was closely involved in the AIPAC investigation, 'which was years in the making. It's a story about the corruption of government -- not legal corruption necessarily, but ethical corruption." In a fascinating (and depressing) must-read, Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein lays bare a byzantine corruption scandal involving AIPAC, the Dubya WH, and Jane Harman, former Democratic chair of the House Intelligence Committee and, some grumbling aside, basically a "team player" for Dubya during the illegal and warrantless wiretaps episode. (Irony of ironies, it appears Harman's misdeeds were caught on -- a court-approved -- wiretap.)

Talking Points Memo offers a handy timeline of the case here. Basically, on one level it's your basic political quid-pro-quo. Harman told an unnamed suspected Israeli agent that she would "waddle into" a federal espionage case then extant against two members of AIPAC and gum up the works somehow. In return, "the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi...to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections." (It didn't take: Pelosi instead chose Silvestre Reyes.) "Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, 'This conversation doesn't exist.'"

Sordid enough. But what's a mid-oughts scandal without the Dubya angle? After she had been caught on said wiretap, a federal investigation into Harman was approved...for awhile. But it seems Attorney General Alberto Gonzales now knew he had Harman in his pocket, and took advantage accordingly. "According to two officials privy to the events, Gonzales said he 'needed Jane' to help support the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by the New York Times. Harman, he told [CIA Director Porter] Goss, had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story before, on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program. He was right. On Dec. 21, 2005, in the midst of a firestorm of criticism about the wiretaps, Harman issued a statement defending the operation and slamming the Times, saying, 'I believe it essential to U.S. national security, and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.'"

Not that I need to remind anyone here, but Dubya's use of illegal and warrantless wiretaps would, in more cases, be recognized as an impeachable offense. As it was, the Senate GOP (then in the catbird seat) held firm against hearings, and many of our congressional Dems -- Feingold, Leahy, and a few other lonely souls notwithstanding -- folded like a house of cards. Now, at least in the case of Harman, we know why.

Update: The NYT weighs in with their side, and it's TLDR'ed by TPM. And Salon's Glenn Greenwald has a good bit of snarky fun with Harman's recent "road to Damascus" moment regarding wiretaps.

"The most preventable tragedy was the deterioration of quality. Downsized local publications were all but forced to rely on more national content, but that content didn't have to become so vapid...But that's what happened. Rather than investing in the valuable steel and concrete of hard reporting, national news outlets began printing the most worthless kind of commercial paper -- rumors, personality profiles and other such speculative derivatives that consumers could find elsewhere."

Don't cry for the end of the newspaper, says Salon's David Sirota (who also seems to be feeling a bit Howard Beale-ish right about now.) They brought it on themselves. "'In place of comprehensive, complex and idiosyncratic coverage, readers of even the most serious newspapers were offered celebrity and scandal, humor and light provocation,' says journalist-turned-director David Simon, whose HBO series 'The Wire' examined this trend." (Simon has more to say on the subject here.)

As Jack Shafer reminds us, newspapers were scurrilous, scandal-ridden, partisan rags long before they were bastions of citizenship and good journalism. Still, now that the broadsheets have mostly followed their television brethren down the road of endless horse-race-type political coverage and surface-skimming trivialities, what's their purpose, really? We can get bad, rushed, smart-alecky journalism from TV and the web.

"As Congress and President Obama rush to balance solidarity with a new wave of populist anger alongside the need for smart policy during a crisis, they might reflect on how well previous politicians fared at the task. History does not repeat itself. But sometimes it does hum a familiar tune." In the wake of the furor over the AIG bonuses, and borrowing heavily from Alan Brinkley's Voices of Protest as well as his own work, historian Michael Kazin gives a brief historical overview of populism in Newsweek. (See also Rick Perlstein in the same magazine, who thinks that recent cries of "populist rage" might be somewhat overstated: "What makes this rage 'populist'? This is ordinary rage, rational and focused...You might more accurately call that common sense.")

I must confess, I find the very-recent press fascination with its latest toy, "populism," to be more than a little irritating. This is partly because, as with the "socialism!" craze of a few weeks ago, the discussion -- above articles excluded -- rarely goes any more than an inch deep, and is clearly fueled more by whatever dodgy sound-bites emanated from the Limbaugh-types that morning than any sort of grounded historical thinking. It's also because, to my mind, the endless tirade of ignorant, self-satisfied, surface-skimming blather vomited forth by the establishment media these days is as much a cause for a populist uprising as the rapacious greed of the asshats at AIG.

From the manifestly idiotic and off-topic lines of questioning of the White House press corps last night, to partisan hacks like AP's Ron Fournier carrying water for the broken GOP by pushing dumb memes about teleprompters (see also Rick Santelli a few weeks ago), and from self-important blowhards like Howard Fineman conjuring up nonsense out of thin air about the purported dissatisfaction of his chummy club to the host of distractions and non-issues we are endlessly barraged with these days, the mainstream press is worse than failing us -- it's part of the problem.

This is nothing new, of course. From l'affaire Lewinsky to Judy Miller's WMD to any number of other issues, the establishment media has been at best lazy, simpering, ratings-driven schlock and at worst dangerously ennabling of corrupt GOP behavior over the years. It's aggravating at the best of times. But we really can't afford this idiotic water-carrying for Republcans or the smug sense of entitlement that exudes from every pore of the establishment-media overclass, at the moment, as we try to extricate ourselves from the gimongous economic hole dug over the past eight years.

So, Lou Dobbs and your like, next time you endlessly prattle on about how angry the people are getting at Wall Street and/or Obama right now, just remember: Be careful what you wish for. If push comes to shove, there's a good bet you'll end up on the wrong end of the pitchfork as well. (AL link via Liam.)

"We have begun the essential work of keeping the American Dream alive in our time. Now, I don't want to pretend that today marks the end of our economic problems. Nor does it constitute all of what we're going to have to do to turn our economy around. But today does mark the beginning of the end...The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that I will sign today -- a plan that meets the principles I laid out in January -- is the most sweeping economic recovery package in our history." Back in Denver for the day, President Obama signs the ARRA economic stimulus bill into law. [Remarks.] "'We have done more in 30 days to advance the cause of health-care reform than this country has done in an entire decade,' Obama said, prompting a standing ovation."

As with the initial versions, the final bill passed without a single GOP vote in the House and only three Republicans -- Snowe, Collins, Specter -- in the Senate. Y'know, it's bad enough that these situationally-ethical jokers stand in the way of what obviously needs to be done to get our economy moving again. (I don't remember any calls for spending restraint, or any worries about pork, in the flush times when Boss DeLay was running the show, or when both Reagan and Dubya were ratcheting up the deficit to all hell.) But, it offends the senses to have to listen to the aggressively stupid talking points Republicans tend to trot out these days. For example, the party's new leader, Michael Steele: "Not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job." (The armed services notwithstanding, who does he think the runs the government? Elves? Hey, Mr. Steele, look down -- we call those roads.) Or consider South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint: "This is not a stimulus bill. It's just a spending bill." Econ 101: A stimulus bill is a spending bill. (They do in fact teach this in SC -- I can attest to it.)

Worse still, the national newsmedia has been failing miserably in their coverage of the stimulus battle, by continually enabling these Republicans to spout their inanities without comment. It reminds me of Paul Begala's "Neil Armstrong Principle," which I heard him break down on Charlie Rose a few months back: "If John McCain and Sarah Palin were to say the moon was made of green cheese, we can be certain that Barack Obama and Joe Biden would pounce on it, and point out it's actually made of rock. And you just know the headline in the paper the next day would read: 'CANDIDATES CLASH ON LUNAR LANDSCAPE.'" Too true.

Well, at least the durned thing passed. I'm sure the bill has its problems, not the least that it was transformed and watered down in an attempt to placate a bunch of Republicans who were never in a million years going to vote for it anyway. Perhaps, when we move forward now, we can focus on writing good policy that will get this economy and our country moving again, rather than catering to the whims of the naysayers, political opportunists, and/or flat-earth morons that comprise today's GOP.

Ron Howard's version of Peter Morgan's Frost/Nixon, the first of many 2008 prestige films I caught over this past weekend, is a solid two hours of decently diverting edutainment. It's not an earth-shattering, must-see film or anything, and Morgan (and Michael Sheen)'s last recent "mini-history," The Queen, is ultimately a more memorable moviegoing experience. Still, Ron Howard's film has its merits. It's much better about opening the space and feeling less play-like than John Patrick Shanley's recent reimagining of Doubt. And it has considerably less of the dry, "Will this be on the test?" feel of much of Bryan Singer's Valkyrie, which sometimes seemed designed as a go-to staple for high school history teachers feeling under the weather. Throw in two highly watchable performances by the main sparrers in this tale, Frank Langella and Michael Sheen as Nixon and Frost respectively, and some scene-stealing buffoonery by Oliver Platt and Sam Rockwell in the margins (Think Rosencrantz/Guildenstern), and you've got a keeper here with Frost/Nixon. And, fwiw, it's probably Howard's best film since Apollo 13, perhaps ever.

As you might expect, the movie begins with a brief recap of the Watergate crisis, culminating in the memorable departure of Richard Nixon (Langella, beady-eyed and furtive) from the White House grounds on August 9, 1974. And, while the mid-Seventies unwind, Nixon licks his wounds, and Rocky Balboa trains on the stairs of the Philadelphia Museum of Art for his one shot at Apollo Creed, another challenger -- this time from across the pond -- begins his own preparations for taking on the champ. In this case, the challenger is David Frost (Sheen), a talk show host and television personality whose American show failed in syndication and who has since been relegated to covering stupid-human-tricks Down Under. Hungry to get back into the Stateside game, Frost sees immediate opportunity in a series of interviews with Nixon, and, by dint of sheer ambition, manages to rope in his BBC producer friend (Matthew MacFadyen of Pride and Prejudice), two down-and-out researchers (Platt and Rockwell), and a leggy brunette he meets on the plane (Rebecca Hall of The Prestige and Vicky Christina Barcelona) into his audacious proposal.

At first, it seems, Frost is in luck. When not dying a slow death on the lecture circuit, the former president has been languishing in San Clemente, and he and his handlers (most notably Kevin Bacon) have been looking for a way to get back in the game themselves. So after Nixon's agent (Toby Jones) extracts from Frost a price the television "performer" can't really afford, and it is deemed by all involved that Frost is a certifiable lightweight, who can be molded as needed to fit the president's new media strategy, the interviews are agreed upon. In the early rounds -- and rounds they are, with points scored, corner men, sweat towels (no 1960 redux for Nixon this time) and the like -- everything proceeds according to plan, with Nixon pontificating presidentially and Frost (and his increasingly exasperated researchers) completely hemmed in. Will this spirited but out-of-his-depth newsman manage to break out of the corner and land a few punishing blows himself? I dunno, but we'll definitely need a montage...

To be honest, I don't think Frost/Nixon ever really succeeds in selling us on the purported importance of the Frost interviews. Granted, I'm too young to remember how they played at the time -- I was sorta more focused on Electric Company and Star Wars right around then. But for all the talk of much-needed national catharsis throughout the film, the world-historical stakes here seem rather small. Coming after all the investigations into the break-in and subsequent cover-up, the congressional hearings on Watergate, the ultimate resignation of the president, and the pardon by Ford, it's hard to see these 1977 talks as much more than a coda to the main event. And, while Langella is exemplary as the 37th president and definitely deserves his recent Oscar nod, I actually think Oliver Stone's Nixon did a better job of humanizing Tricky Dick and animating his demons. (In fact, there's a midnight drunk-dialing episode here in Frost/Nixon (an obviously fabricated event) which wouldn't seem out of place in Stone's film.)

Still, once you move past its historical pretensions and realize that, for all intent and purposes, Frost/Nixon is basically just the political debater's version of a boxing movie, there's still some good fun to be had here. And, hey, he may now seem like a piker when compared to the intelligence-falsifying, torture-happy shenanigans of 43 -- can we expect Lauer/Dubya just around the corner? -- but at least we'll always have Nixon to kick around some more.

Update: David Frost, Michael Sheen, and others talk about the film here.

"With all due immodesty, I think it doesn’t help to lose me because people have told me they read The Voice not only for me, but certainly for me." In another troubling indicator of how bad things are getting in the world of print journalism, the venerable institution Nat Hentoff is laid off from The Village Voice. "'Nat Hentoff wrote liner notes for every great musician that I’ve ever loved, from Billie Holiday to Bob Dylan and Aretha Franklin, and that’s not even what he’s been writing about for the last 30 years,' said Tom Robbins, a Voice staff writer."

So I take it y'all have been following the recent outrage in Empire State politics: A woman who's never held any kind of elected office but happens to have a big, important surname just up and decides she'd like to be the Senator from New York. To accommodate this sudden quasi-royal prerogative, other deserving candidates in the Democratic party are completely shunted aside, including some who've spent their entire careers in public service. And, here's the real kicker: At the end of the day, despite having very little to show for her legislative career, this well-named woman is for some reason made Secretary of State.

Ok, I'm partly kidding. Nonetheless, I find the recent furor over Caroline Kennedy's possible two-year appointment to the New York Senate to be a bit willfully obtuse about both recent events and the former occupants of that Senate seat. Even the obvious Clinton analogy notwithstanding, lest we forget: Longtime Massachusetts resident Bobby Kennedy was only tangentially qualified for a New York Senate seat in 1964, and even his brother Teddy was basically appointed the first time 'round. And, besides, if Clinton's perch doesn't go to Mrs. Kennedy, who then is waiting in the wings? Well, most likely, Andrew Cuomo. A real bootstrapper, that one.

Don't get me wrong: In principle, I'm dead set against the idea of Senate seats being doled out on the basis of familial connections. It's an ugly, monarchical habit, and if the seat ends up going to a relatively unknown pol who's paid their dues (a la Nita Lowey, who got pushed out for Clinton in 2000), all the better. Still, I'm inclined to think charitably of Caroline Kennedy for several reasons other than her name and historic lineage: her early advocacy of Sen. Obama and the good work she's done for my sister's organization over the years, to name just two. And, if Gov. Patterson were to end up choosing her...well, ok. I can think of more egregious injustices in this world. To watch the TNR gang throw an extended fit about it, or read Salon hackmeister Joan Walsh (who, by the way, penned an extraordinarily self-serving 2008 retrospective this past week) put down her Clinton pom-poms for a second to tsk-tsk the Kennedy "celebrity" candidacy is, in a word, irritating.

"[Obama] should have, right from the beginning, been more forthcoming." Uh...what? Former White House consigliere Karl Rove, he of the missing e-mails and the congressional contempt citation, takes it upon himself to lecture the incoming Obama administration on issues of transparency vis a vis the Blagojevich situation, which is a bit like listening to Dirty Harry tsk-tsk someone for not following standard police procedure. I'm sorry, Karl, but you don't have much credibility when it comes to the "forthcoming" department. Not. at. all.

The larger story here, of course, is the Republican attempt to ascribe nefarious deeds to the Obama team when it's patently clear, from the transcripts and otherwise, that the incoming administration's hands are clean in the Blagojevich matter. We've seen this movie several times before during the Clinton era, when conservatives, abetted by the lazy groupthink tendencies of certain scandal-hungry media outlets, conspired to create full-blown, prolonged investigations out of Whitewater and the like. Let's hope we're all a little bit wiser to the origins of such manufactured controversies nowadays.

"This time, the FWP could begin by documenting the ground-level impact of the Great Recession; chronicling the transition to a green economy; or capturing the experiences of the thousands of immigrants who are changing the American complexion. Like the original FWP, the new version would focus in particular on those segments of society largely ignored by commercial and even public media." In the wake of the turmoil engulfing the newspaper industry at the moment (see also: The Wire, Season 5), journalist Mark Pinsky argues in TNR for a 21st century revival of the Federal Writers' Project. Given the woeful state of the academic job market during this current downturn, I bet there are quite a few historians out there who'd give this a "Huzzah!"

"So, I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me. But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it’s a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me." Old news by now, but just to get it on-the-record: Shown the door by the editors of his late father's magazine for his recent prObama apostasy, columnist and satirist Christopher Buckley bids farewell to the conservative "movement". "While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of 'conservative' government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case."

Along the same lines, see also former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan's most recent WSJ column. (Noonan, remember, is also on the outs with the stark-raving fundies because of her recent open-mic remarks regarding Palin on MSNBC.) Buried under the obligatory (if fanciful) McCain-won-the-debate lede is this telling passage: "In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It's no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain, against his judgment and idealism. I gather this week from conservative publications that those whose thoughts lead them to criticism in this area are to be shunned, and accused of the lowest motives...In all this, the conservative intelligentsia are doing what they have done for five years. They bitterly attacked those who came to stand against the Bush administration. This was destructive. If they had stood for conservative principle and the full expression of views, instead of attempting to silence those who opposed mere party, their movement, and the party, would be in a better, and healthier, position. At any rate, come and get me, copper."

"We thought this election would be a serious fight over the future of this country, but only one candidate showed up...Not even the presidency is worth what it's made John McCain do to himself." While it's been quiet here, Ted of The Late Adopter has been keeping tabs on big newspaper and magazine endorsements. Announcing for Obama of late: The Denver Post, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, the Seattle Times, The New Yorker (shocking, I know), the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Tribune (its first-ever Dem endorsement), and Esquire (its first-ever endorsement, period -- the quote above is from them.)

Keep in mind, though, that the mainstream media hate Republicans (except, of course, when they're starting wars of choice.) And really, who in the hell do these bigheads think they are, trying to confuse us with their words?

"Of all the shortcomings of the establishment press today, none is more central to the corruption of the profession than the decision to prioritize balance over accuracy. That corruption is visibly on display in the current coverage of the McCain campaign's policy of deliberate lies...This is what gives liars a clear strategic advantage over non-liars. And it's an open question whether McCain's level of dishonesty turns out to be so great that it overwhelms reporters' unwillingness to report accurately on it." Over at TPM, Josh Marshall rails against media complicity in the McCain campaign's recent embrace of blatant falsehood as a political strategy. (You know it's bad when even the Post's Richard Cohen is renouncing his McCain-love.)

The other night, I caught the tail end of Bob Schieffer, Jonathan Alter, and Paul Begala on Charlie Rose, and Alter, Schieffer et al were blaming the pathetic, pathetic job by the mainstream media in this election on, of course, the blogosphere (much as Schieffer did in the interview here.) "We can't be responsible for all these bloggers. The Internet is the only vehicle to convey news...that has no editor. Even the worst newspaper has an editor." (Schieffer, 44:30) Uh, Judith Miller wasn't writing a blog, nor was the Gray Lady bereft of editors, when the NYT and the rest of the mainstream media basically inhaled the Dubya administration's lies about the Iraq war without complaint. And the same goes for the MSM's dancing around the obvious tripe emanating from the McCain campaign here in 2008.

Look, blogs aren't the problem right now. As Marshall and many others have noted, the problem is that all too much of the MSM, once again using "balance" as a cover for its cowardice, spends the majority of its time trying to ascertain -- and then straddle -- the exact middle point between the facts as they stand and McCain-Palin's recent spate of ridiculous deceptions. To paraphrase Colbert: If, as it has in recent weeks, the truth has a definite Obama bias, then it befalls the Fourth Estate, as the self-appointed referees of the political ballgame, to set the record straight. And if televised poobahs like Candy Crowley refuse to do their jobs, and even talking heads who should know better, such as my old employer, roll over like puppies in the name of McCain's presumed maverickness, then it's definitely up to the blogs out there to fill the void. (See for example, Andrew Sullivan, who's been compiling a sadly expansive list of the lies of Sarah Palin.)

The depressing slide of our major media institutions into frightened, ratings-fueled irrelevance didn't start with this election, or course. But the stakes are too high right now to sit back and let their abysmal erosion pay any more dividends for the McCain campaign. We need to fight back, and hard. (Ad below via Ted at the Late Adopter.)

"You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical." Oops. When they're on the air, of course, most right-leaning pundits have very little criticism -- indeed, judicious praise -- of the Palin pick. Meanwhile, the media talking heads just nod along and pretend there might possibly some merit to such a ludicrous choice by the mythical maverick. Off the air, however, it's a different story. Just listen to Chuck Todd, Peggy Noonan, and Mike Murphy discuss their real feelings about Palin in-between segments on MSNBC. (They got busted by an open mic.) Says Noonan of the election (when she's not shilling for the right): "It's over." Update: In print this morning, Noonan scrambles.

Well, 162 years is a good run...but, sadly, the lowest-common-denominator, hyper-partisan idiocy derailing so much of the media these days seems to have now infected one of our oldest and most venerable American media institutions, the Associated Press. The handwriting's been on the wall ever since conservative ideologue and almost-McCain-employee Ron Fournier moved up the pecking order. But, in the past two days, AP has completely embarrassed itself no less than twice. First, the AP analysis (by some stone-hearted fellow -- paging Sinclair Lewis -- named Charles Babington) bashed Obama's nomination speech in purely Republican terms. Then, check out Fournier's headline on McCain's grotesque Palin pick: "Analysis: Palin's age, inexperience rival Obama's ." Uh, yeah.

Update: "As many of you know, some political groups and left-leaning blogs have aligned to organize a newspaper letter-writing campaign against AP Washington Bureau Chief Ron Fournier...Below you will find some talking points to help guide you as this issue plays out." The AP issues CYA talking points to its affiliates defending Fournier.

While I'm getting all the "look at me -- I'm embedded!" links out of the way, here's a Conde Nast Portfolio report on the Big Tent, filmed Monday, that features me briefly. Judging from the questions I keep getting asked, numerous mainstream media groups seem to be doing variations on this same sorta puff-piece story ("Who are these crazy "bloggers," and (gasp) will they take over everything?), although -- at least so far -- I've spent most of my own interview-time talking to foreign press.

Also, whatever Drudge is currently saying about "Google massaging journalists," they're in fact massaging bloggers. Yes, there's still a difference (and, no, I still haven't partaken -- big line.)

“'Lawrence Spivak, who founded ‘Meet the Press,’ told me before he died that the job of the host is to learn as much as you can about your guest’s positions and take the other side,' he said in a 2007 interview with Time magazine. 'And to do that in a persistent and civil way. And that’s what I try to do every Sunday.'" Moynihan man turned pundit-king Tim Russert, 1950-2008. Now, that's a surprise. Russert was a guy I actually met a few times during my Carville days (in fact, I once inadvertently hit him with a whiffleball bat...long story), and he always seemed a genuine, amiable sort, particularly by DC talking-head standards. Obviously, his unique brand of political interrogation left something to be desired in many circles. Still, he was taken relatively young (and before his father), which is always tragic. Rest in peace, Russ.

"Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

Do you remember the Iraq War of 2003? Remember those heady days of euphoria when it ended two months later, with only 139 American lives lost? Journey back with me -- TIME-LIFE style, if you will -- to the scene of our triumph: "Chris Matthews on MSNBC called Bush a 'hero' and boomed, 'He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.' PBS' Gwen Ifill said Bush was 'part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan.' On NBC, Brian Williams gushed, 'The pictures were beautiful. It was quite something to see the first-ever American president on a -- on a carrier landing. This must be very meaningful to the United States military.'"

Well, today marks the five-year anniversary of our glorious victory, the day that "splendid little war" came to a close. Among those honoring the day, and the remarkable achievement of our Commander-in-Chief:

"I feel that those citizens who say that have never heard my sermons, nor do they know me. They are unfair accusations taken from sound bites...I served six years in the military. Does that make me patriotic? How many years did Cheney serve?" I haven't watched the Sunday shows yet, but, if today's press is any indication, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is the big story in the news, after he delivered remarks in several venues aimed at defending himself against the recent media throng, as well as horrifying attempts by the like of George Stephanopoulos to McCarthify him on national television. (As I said here, we seem to have entirely skipped the rails when kindly ole Mike Huckabee is the biggest voice for tolerance and historical understanding in the conversation.)

At any rate, the return of Obama's Angry Black Preacher-Man prompted tut-tuts of electoral worry from Clinton-leaning concern trolls like like Salon's Joan Walsh, and the usual waiting for the other-shoe-to-drop from breathless political blogs like War Room and Ben Smith. What I haven't seen yet today, amid all the puttering from the press on the subject of Wright, is any attempt to put the Reverend's remarks in context of this weekend's highly dubious acquittal in the Sean Bell case. To wit, New York City cops shoot an unarmed black man and his friends 50 times and end up getting off for it, and, outside of Harlem, there's barely a shrug, including in the news media. Meanwhile, when it comes to anything and everything involving the fates of Natalee Holloway, Laci Peterson, and any other white damsel in distress, the press drone on about it endlessly, funnelling info to us months or even years after the cases have gone cold. But, as they say, this ain't Aruba, b**ch.

Is Rev. Wright angry? At this point, and as this weekend's fiasco makes clear, he has every right to be. Perhaps the press and the punditocracy could investigate more thoroughly why black America may be less inclined to think well of our nation at times, rather than working themselves into yet another holier-than-thou froth about occasional intemperate remarks, and/or endlessly fretting about their potential impact on the electoral whims of the white working class. God forbid these media asshats break out of their echo chamber bubble once in awhile and do some honest-to-goodness reporting. Heck, I'd be happy just to see a few of 'em think for themselves.

First we had Senator Clinton adopting various Hail Mary Rovianisms, which have been well recorded here, including but not nearly limited to an ad featuring Osama Bin Laden just this past week. Then Bill went on the Rush Limbaugh show. Then Sen. Clinton played nice with Richard Mellon Scaife, architect of the "vast right-wing conspiracy," for his endorsement. And now we have this:

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

"In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access. A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis."

Another holdover from the weekend: The NYT exposes the Pentagon's platoon of professional pro-war pundits (or puppets, as the case may be.) "'It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,' Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said...Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as 'message force multipliers' or 'surrogates' who could be counted on to deliver administration 'themes and messages' to millions of Americans 'in the form of their own opinions."

'Twas in another lifetime, one of toil and blood, when blackness was a virtue and the road was full of mud." Well, actually, it was only six weeks ago, just after Mississippi. (It only seems like a lifetime.) Still, I posted then, following Al Giordano at Rural Votes, to beware Pennsylvania tunnel vision, as it's a state tailor-made for Clinton's demographic strengths. Six long, miserable weeks later, after Jeremiah Wright and The Speech and Tuzla snipers and the Bitter pill, we've finally made it to PA Day, and what I wrote then still holds true. Given the polls and the probable Limbaugh shenanigans in Pennsyltucky, Clinton will almost assuredly win the Keystone State by double digits tonight, and yet still won't amass enough delegates to make a bit of difference in the final decision. And, because the media still won't call the race (and, indeed, resent even the slightest implication that they're lazy and f**king pathetic at their line of work), we will grimly slog on to May 6th, watching enviously as McCain and the GOP dance their happy jig of Dem self-immolation. (Don't get me wrong: I still think Obama will trounce McCain thoroughly in November. But it's going to be much harder than it ever needed to be.)

Was that magical night in Iowa really less than four months ago? It seems since then that we Obama-leaning political junkies are being punished by the Clinton campaign for the sin of putting too much faith in the process, and have been consigned to a neverending Purgatory of endless lowballs and trifling media idiocies. In a different world, I might have been flabbergasted by Clinton shoehorning Pearl Harbor and Bin Laden into a political ad against a fellow Democrat. But, at this late date, did anyone really expect anything less? Give it a few more weeks and the Clinton campaign will likely be regaling us with D.W. Griffith and guys in blackface. And it will still be over. Update: By way of Dangerous Meta, Sen. Clinton also attempted to recertify her cajones this morning by threatening to "obliterate" Iran. Dubya much, Senator?

At any rate, if you are of the Pennsylvanian persuasion, please consider voting for Barack Obama today. Let's get focused on our real opponent, already.

You don't need The Weathermen to know which way the wind blows: This thing is over, and has been for weeks and weeks now. But, ABC held a debate tonight in Philadelphia anyway, and, man, it was a tough slog. [Transcript.] Moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos endlessly trafficked in inanities. (The Weather Underground? Really?) Sen. Clinton found no level she couldn't passive-aggressively sink beneath: Cringeworthy throughout, she name-dropped Farrakhan and channeled 9iu11iani whenever possible (see, for example, her answers on Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, and she got in Ahmadinejad's recent remarks as well.) And Sen. Obama seemed tired, a bit rusty, and, after 45 shallow minutes of idiotic gotcha, (justifiably) ticked. (But I thought he still came through in the clutch anyway.)

The only news made tonight? ABC is rather terrible at this whole debate thing. Tonight was basically a fiasco. From Stephanopoulos questioning Obama on flag pins to the tut-tutting about affirmative action to George getting questions from Sean Hannity to Gibson trying to wrest a "no new taxes" pledge from the candidates, virtually every minute tonight was occupied with trite Republican nonsense. Oh, and Gibson's dim remark at the Manchester debate that two-professor families make $200,000 a year was not a fluke. Apparently, the guy knows less about the economy than John McCain. Tonight he informed us that there "are a heck of a lot of people" making between $97,000 and $200,000 these days. If by "heck of a lot" you mean 14% of the US, well, ok. But some might consider 1 in 7 a rather small minority of the total population, and thus argue that our tax policy should keep the other, more-likely-to-be-struggling 6 out of 7 in mind. Sheesh...less than a week and our friends in the pundit world have already abandoned their newfound blue-collar bitterness.

At any rate, no news or game-changers to speak of. Sen. Obama is still our nominee, Sen. Clinton is still grappling with that fact. If you didn't watch this tonight, you chose wisely. Update: Having run ABC's gauntlet of idiocy, Obama brushes his shoulders off, puts distractions on notice, and says no to more debates.

Hey all. As promised, I've been working on other things over the past few days, and thus haven't really been following the election news as closely as in recent months. I'd heard that Sen. Obama had basically restated the thesis of What's the Matter with Kansas? at a fundraiser in San Francisco, and thought that, lordy, it was a slow news week. So, imagine my surprise when I settled in for the Sunday shows to discover that I was supposed to be outraged -- outraged, I tell you! -- at the import and tenor of Sen. Obama's remarks. Across the board, the Washington punditariat had ratcheted up the pique to 11, lambasting Obama for being elitist and out-of-touch because he argued a case for the appeal of cultural conservatism in economic bad times that's been made all over the place, not the least by the Clintons themselves. (By the way, this televised uprising of the pundit proletariat included several people I dealt with personally during my previous sojourn in DC and, well...let's just say I wasn't buying their newly-discovered blue-collar bona fides. Not. One. Bit. (and I'm not talking about Carville & Matalin, although they were in the mix on Sunday too.))

Enter Sen. Clinton, shameless as ever. Apparently seeing "Bitter-gate" as her last, best hope for the nomination, she's plumbed new depths of self-parody this week, not only calling Obama an elitist but trying to recast herself as some kind of working-class hero. (I guess she assumed we'd all just forget that she made $109 million over the past seven years, has been running around with a Secret Service detail for nearly two decades, and has had people otherwise waiting on her since 1978. Springsteen, she's not.) Nope, now she's banging back boilermakers, attacking Obama like he's the Second Coming of John Kerry (to the point of getting booed for it) and conjuring up this ridiculous ad of small-town folk aghast by Obama's words.

Well, I guess I'm an out-of-touch elitist too, because, frankly, I'm just not seeing it. Not only does this entire brouhaha seems like a completely media-manufactured (and Clinton-prolonged) event to me, but I'd be highly surprised if the vast majority of people Obama was referring to take any offense whatsoever. In fact, if anything, I'd bet the people who are supposed to feel so put upon here may well end up feeling more condescended to by Clinton and the mass media for trying to tell them they should be ticked off. Just a hunch...I could be very wrong. With fifteen years and counting in BosWash, it's been awhile since I've had my finger on the pulse of the Heartland. Still, I'm willing to bet that the white working-class Americans who are theoretically insulted by Obama's words are smarter, and made of sterner stuff, than Clinton et al would give them credit for. And this too shall pass.

Update: Speaking of Springsteen, the Boss endorses Obama, in part due to Bitter-gate. "At the moment, critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships. While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man's life and vision, so well described in his excellent book, Dreams of My Father, often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of our environment."

They may have lost some luster due to Scott Templeton garnering one for the Whiting/Klebanow regime. Nevertheless, the 2008 Pulitzers were announced yesterday, and they included 6 for the WP, Daniel Walker Howe's What Hath God Wrought in the history category and a special citation to the freewheeling Bob Dylan "for his profound impact on popular music and American culture, marked by lyrical compositions of extraordinary poetic power." Well, ok then.

"One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning." Following the lead of Chuck Todd and the NYT, Politico's Jim Vanderhei and Mike Allen make the staggering realization that the Democratic primary is over. "[S]he has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else. People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet...In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe."

This is all true, of course, and it's good to see MSM outlets -- Jon Alter notwithstanding -- finally say as much. Still, it's more than a little irritating that, [a] not only is the press getting wise to this fact almost three weeks after it became patently obvious, but [b] when they finally do, the story isn't "the race is over" but "look, the press is covering the race like it's not over." Please, quit the collective navel-gazing and do your jobs, people.

Update: TPM's Josh Marshall has his own moment of clarity...sort of. "The obstacles in the way of Hillary Clinton are virtually insurmountable...Everyone in the press, probably including us, should be much more candid about that." "Probably"? Oh, good grief.

"No one went near the theme; everyone stayed dead-center and literal, oblivious to the big-ass elephant in our mythical newsroom...Here's what happened in season five of The Wire when almost no one -- among the working press, at least -- was looking: Our newspaper missed every major story." With the finale come and gone, David Simon has to explain to the press the theme of the season, which they -- ironically -- missed. (See also: the next post.)

"The irony to all of this, of course, is that while the mechanics of the Democratic nomination fight overwhelmingly favor Obama, the media is giving Clinton a huge lift. And this comes after a year of Clinton complaints that the media was doing them more harm than good." MSNBC's Chuck Todd argues that the press may be the only thing keeping Clinton in it (and that the supers may not much like Clinton anyway.) Gee, you think?

In related news, the NYT's Adam Nagourney argues Clinton's path to the nomination has gotten harder, now that Michigan and Florida don't appear to be revoting. "If there is a road to victory for Mrs. Clinton, it is a fairly narrow one." Emphasis there on "If." But, hey, at least they're starting to figure it out. Update: CNN also gropes toward the math.

I'm not going to cover all the sordid details of the Spitzer case here -- he's gone, so, politically speaking, there's not much else to say about it (and -- for the moment anyway -- the search for a possible campaign funds connection sounds likes a fishing expedition.) Nevertheless, regarding the news coverage here in the Apple, it -- to no one's surprise, I guess -- has already pushed past prurient to wallow in the tacky. When the feeding frenzy first locked on to "Kristen's" MySpace page (5 million hits in a day), I actually felt sorta bad for the poor girl. (Ok, I know, she's not poor -- she makes $5500/hr. Still.) Prostitution is illegal, true, but she's still basically a troubled kid engaged in a seedy enterprise, and I think it'd be pretty hard for any personal site -- this one included -- to withstand that level of withering, snark-heavy scrutiny from the entire world at large. That being said, from front-page, come-hither portfolios all over NY today to 200 large made on music downloads overnight, I have a feeling the last thing Ms. Dupre needs right now is anyone's pity. Oh well. Milk it, I guess.

Just be clear, I'm not saying the coverage is anywhere near as repellent as the media aftermath to the Virginia Tech killings, and I know sex has sold newspapers since the dawn of the printing press. (I mean, the tabloids caught my attention this morning.) But, c'mon now. In any case, I'm guessing Silla Wall Spitzer is having a truly terrible day.

(By the way, if anyone cares about my own editorial decision to post a pic of Ashley Dupre here, I did so to be fair to Ms. Iseman, of McCain fame. The lesson here seems to be: If you must get caught in a sex scandal (or what the NYT thinks might be a sex scandal), try to keep the seamier-type pics off of the Internets.) Update: Client 9 radio? Um, yeah.

"'I am trying to make sure that his statements by him are answered. Don't you think that's important?' Obama shot back, while walking away. When Zeleny yelled a follow up question suggesting the Illinois senator had not answered the question, Obama fired back angrily, 'Don't try cheap stunts like that.'" Read this ABC News story of Obama apparently getting "testy" about questions involving the Clintons. ("Is Bill Clinton getting in Obama's head?") Then watch the video of this overblown encounter. What was that about the Obama-loving media?

"For Simon, this dispute basically comes down to the complexity of urban problems. As he sees it, the 'Philly model,' imported to the Sun by Carroll and Marimow [re: Klebanow and Whiting], ignored the decades of economic, racial, political, and social disconnects underlying that complexity. When it spurred reform, it was reform that could not match the intransigence of the underlying patterns. The reporting itself was formidable, Simon says, but to him, homelessness, addiction, and violence aren’t the central problems. 'Those are all the symptoms of the problem,' he says. 'You can carve off a symptom and talk about how bad drugs are, and you can blame the police department for fucking up the drug war, but that’s kind of like coming up to a house hit by a hurricane and making a lot of voluminous notes about the fact that some roof tiles are off.'"

As The Wire 53 premieres on On Demand, some links on the journalistic controversies driving show creator David Simon's animus this season. The CJR offered a long and interesting overview of the Simon v. Marimow/Carroll feud, and its partial roots in differing conceptions of urban journalism. An old 2000 City Paper piece suggests who Simon may have in mind in cub reporter Scott Templeton. And Simon himself recently discussed his old newsroom for Esquire, and got involved with Mark Bowden and Matt Yglesias over at The Atlantic. (Most links here via THND.)

"I do find the timing of this whole issue very interesting. And we're not going to stand for what happened to us in 2000. We're getting close to the primary." Matt Drudge's recent attempts to foist a December Surprise into the Democratic primaries seems to have whiffed. Will he draw more blood in the GOP? John McCain decides to respond forcefully to an unpublished Times story -- held up by editor Bill Keller and leaked to Drudge -- involving some sort of unspecified lobbyist malfeasance. Hmmm. I'm torn on this. Since the NYT story hasn't actually gone live, there may well be nothing to it. As such, this looks a bit like the Choose Your Own Scandal shenanigans that Clinton operatives attempted to unleash on Obama last month. But, then again, the NYT powers-that-be were idiotic enough to hold the NSA wiretap story through the 2004 election, so maybe their judgment about what constitutes newsworthiness around voting time should be in question.

Late to the party on this, but some endorsements of note. The The Des Moines Register backs Hillary Clinton, as does former Senator and Bradley supporter Bob Kerrey (although Kerrey has some nice words for Obama as well.) Says the Register: "Obama, her chief rival, inspired our imaginations. But it was Clinton who inspired our confidence." And, of course, former President Bill Clinton has been touting his wife more loudly than usual of late, including going so far as to disparage Obama on television.

Meanwhile, calling Clinton's campaign "needlessly defensive" and "a backward glance at the bruising political battles of the 1990s," the Boston Globe backs Barack Obama, citing his international experience, judgment, and -- most happily -- his progressive bona fides: "The first major bill to Obama's name in the Illinois Legislature was on campaign ethics reform. In Washington, he coauthored this year's sweeping congressional lobbying reform law...exposure [to government] has tended to give [Obama's opponents] a sense of government's constraints. Obama is more animated by its possibilities."

Finally, while Mike Huckabee may have locked up the home-school crowd, both the Des Moines Register and Boston Globe back John McCain...as does -- continuing his fall from Democratic grace -- formerly Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman. "The problems that confront us are too great, the threats we face too real, and the opportunities we have too exciting for us to play partisan politics with the presidency," said Lieberman. Sigh...And he and Clinton seemed so close in their aghast GOP-lite moralism when they were blaming Grand Theft Auto for all America's ills.

"'I was panicked a bit because I really don't know about...the Cuban Missile Crisis,' said Perino, who at 35 was born about a decade after the 1962 U.S.-Soviet nuclear showdown. 'It had to do with Cuba and missiles, I'm pretty sure.'" Wait, wait, wait...what? By way of Ben of The Oak, it seems Dubya press secretary Dana Perino has never heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis. "So she consulted her best source. 'I came home and I asked my husband,' she recalled. 'I said, "Wasn't that like the Bay of Pigs thing?" And he said, "Oh, Dana."'" Ladies and Gentlemen, the spokesperson for our current president. Have we fallen so far? And if that sounds like a pedantic thing to say, well, consider me pedantic. I know nobody wants to work for this misfit administration anymore, but, we've a lot of people in this country, and many of 'em are still even Republicans. Perhaps we can find someone to fill the position of the president's mouthpiece who knows a thing or two about major events in American history over the past fifty years? That'd be great.

"In The Atlantic's very first issue, in 1857, the magazine's founders -- an illustrious group that included Ralph Waldo Emerson, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and James Russell Lowell -- declared that they would dedicate their new publication to monitoring the development, and advancing the cause, of what they called 'the American idea.' And for the last century and a half, the magazine has been preoccupied with the fundamental subjects of the American experience: war and peace, science and religion, the conundrum of race, the role of women, the plight of the cities, the struggle to preserve the environment, the strengths and failings of our politics, and especially, America's proper place in the world." To commemorate the magazine's 150th anniversary, The Atlantic Monthly publishes The American Idea, an anthology of articles which includes republished writings by TR, W.E.B. DuBois, Albert Einstein, John Muir, Helen Keller, and Vannevar Bush. (Alas, only ten of the included articles are online.)

"This final season of the show, Simon told me, will be about 'perception versus reality' -- in particular, what kind of reality newspapers can capture and what they can’t. Newspapers across the country are shrinking, laying off beat reporters who understood their turf. More important, Simon believes, newspapers are fundamentally not equipped to convey certain kinds of complex truths. Instead, they focus on scandals -- stories that have a clean moral. 'It’s like, Find the eight-hundred-dollar toilet seat, find the contractor who’s double-billing,' Simon said at one point. 'That’s their bread and butter. Systemic societal failure that has multiple problems -- newspapers are not designed to understand it."

A huge find by way of Chris at Do You Feel Loved?: Margaret Talbot offers a long-form New Yorker profile on David Simon and The Wire. (If you haven't yet seen Season 4, I recommend bookmarking this for now -- it gives away many of S4's major beats.) There's also a good deal of spoilerish information on what to expect from Season 5, what David Simon wants to do next, and who's singing this season's version of "Way Down in the Hole." (I'll give that one away...Bubbles' sponsor, Steve Earle -- listen here.) "Simon makes it clear that the show’s ambitions were grand. '"The Wire" is dissent,' he says. 'It is perhaps the only storytelling on television that overtly suggests that our political and economic and social constructs are no longer viable, that our leadership has failed us relentlessly, and that no, we are not going to be all right.'"

Right around the midpoint of Steve Buscemi's uneven, ultimately disappointing Interview, the first of three American remakes of films by the slain Dutch director Theo Van Gogh (the other two will be directed by Stanley Tucci and John Turturro), Buscemi's beleaguered, world-weary, and increasingly drunk journalist bemoans the state of his notes for his article on Sienna Miller's catty, self-entitled celebrity-of-the-moment: "This tape is just ten minutes of us bickering at each other!" Uh, Steve, it's more like 85 minutes. A very brief scene at the opening notwithstanding, the entire movie consists of this eponymous interview, meaning that Buscemi and Miller are bickering, cajoling, pleading, seducing, and threatening each other for the entire film's run. This wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing -- I came in to the movie expecting a theaterish two-person character study (with possible archetypal overtones about the overlapping worlds of media and entertainment): Add one pompous reporter, one self-infatuated actress, and simmer. But, while the beginning is engaging, the ending is decent, and the film is well-made and well-acted throughout, Interview lost me in the middle going. These two characters turn on a dime too quickly too often: They go from at each other's throats to in each other's arms and back over and over again, and it just doesn't feel plausible. This is mainly a fault of the writing, which -- while clever -- also feels stilted and unnatural. Buscemi the actor and director comes up aces here, but Buscemi the writer (along with David Schecter) frankly could've used a later deadline.

The plot, in a nutshell, has already been described: Pierre (Steve Buscemi) is a hard-drinking, pill-popping political journalist who, as the result of being on the outs with his editor, has been assigned a celebrity puff piece in New York on the same day Very Important Indictments are being handed down in DC. (As we discover in the film's opening moments, he also has a shell of a brother wasting away at a mental hospital. Based on later revelations, this inclusion may be important, or it may just be a red herring -- I chalked it up to a need to humanize Pierre before we watch him rant and rave his way through the rest of the evening.) The celebrity in question is Katya (Sienna Miller), the It Girl of the hour for her sexual escapades and breast reduction surgery as much as for her horror film and soapy TV drama (neither of which Pierre took the trouble to screen beforehand. He considers the subject matter -- and the subject -- beneath him.) The official interview, at a trendy downtown restaurant, starts and ends badly. But, on the way home, an accidental bump on the head, perhaps precipitated by Katya's winning smile, gets our two antagonists bottled up in her spacious Tribeca loft, where the "real" interview begins to unfurl...

The remainder of this epic interview consists of seventy or so minutes of intensive, convulsive, verbal wrestling within this deluxe apartment in the sky: Buscemi's snake to Miller's mongoose (or is it Buscemi's mongoose to Miller's snake? Either way it's bad -- I don't know animals.) Their sparring is intermittently entertaining, to be sure, but it zigs and zags too often to feel anything close to real. And, while Buscemi and Miller both do excellent work in the roles as written, other parts of the story just don't hold up. At one point, Buscemi becomes fascinated with some morbid paragraphs he finds (surreptitiously) in Katya's diary. But, frankly, it's the type of gloomy woe-is-me fluff everybody had written at some point in a journal, and it doesn't really make sense that it'd pique his interest so. And to help explain away the reason why neither Pierre or Katya disengage from this disastrous conversation much earlier, they're given an unwieldy, simplistic Freudian connection -- he looks like her wayward dad (her dad is John Waters?), she reminds him of his deceased daughter -- that comes off as groan-inducing more than anything else. The last few beats of the movie help bring the story into focus, but by then the damage is done -- I'd stop thinking of either character as real people, or as anything other than writerly conceits. For all intent and purposes by then, the Interview was over.

"To me, the 12 formats serve equally well as a weapon of defense for the consumer under assault from endless advertising messages. It's like learning how a magic trick works: Once the secret's revealed, the trick loses all its power." Old friend Seth Stevenson explains the twelve different types of advertising for Slate, with example ads for your perusal.

"'Here...comes...that famous General Taguba -- of the Taguba report!' Rumsfeld declared, in a mocking voice." Well, the agency and the time may have changed, but it's increasingly clear we still have a lot to answer for, thanks to the actions of those who would claim to protect our way of life. The inimitable Sy Hersh of The New Yorker (who also played a role in 1974 in getting the CIA docs released -- take that, Woodward) reports in with the tale of General Antonio Taguba, the head of the Army's original investigation into Abu Ghraib who, like so many other truth-tellers in the administration, was eventually hung out to dry for his candor. Hersh's frightening and sadly plausible piece not only makes clear that Rumsfeld, Dubya, et al had more knowledge of the nightmare of Abu Ghraib than they've publicly let on, but also suggests that those repellent images we've all seen from the prison may only be the tip of the iceberg of the horrors that occurred in our country's name. "Taguba said that he saw 'a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee.' The video was not made public in any of the subsequent court proceedings, nor has there been any public government mention of it."

"I am going to say something that few people in public life will say, but most know is absolutely true: a vast aspect of our jobs today - outside of the really major decisions, as big as anything else - is coping with the media, its sheer scale, weight and constant hyperactivity. At points, it literally overwhelms." In his final weeks as prime minister, Tony Blair addresses the problem of the media, calling it "like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits." (Full text of remarks.) "The result is a media that increasingly and to a dangerous degree is driven by 'impact'. Impact is what matters. It is all that can distinguish, can rise above the clamour, can get noticed. Impact gives competitive edge. Of course the accuracy of a story counts. But it is secondary to impact. It is this necessary devotion to impact that is unravelling standards, driving them down, making the diversity of the media not the strength it should be but an impulsion towards sensation above all else."

I wouldn't say the feral beast metaphor gets right at it -- until last year, most of the major news media, in this country at least, was rather well domesticated: It let Dubya lie his way through just about anything, including building a case for war in Iraq on false pretenses, with impunity. But, clearly something is broken with "this relationship between public life and media," as Blair put it. In the midst of a conflict that's been dragging on longer than World War II, you're still likely to hear more about Paris Hilton's jail travails (Prison sucks? Our criminal justice system tends to favor the wealthy? Who knew?), Don Imus's racist bromides (A bile-spewing racist on talk radio? Wherever did they find him?), or the winner of American Idol, to take only three recent examples, than anything of use about the status of the conflict, or our actions, there. And even coverage of the horrifying tragedy at Virginia Tech, obviously a legitimate news story, descended into exploitation almost immediately (and provoked very little understanding that this level of tragedy has become virtually a daily occurrence in Iraq.) They're just giving us what they want, I suspect the comeback is, and that's almost assuredly true. But, still, it'd be nice to see a little more daily recognition from our major journalistic outlets that the mass media in our society performs a crucial -- if not the crucial -- function in informing the electorate on current events and providing the information indispensable to maintaining an active, responsive citizenry, and that other factors should come into play in their coverage than just the corporate bottom line. Update: From the press box, Slate's Jack Shafer cries foul.

I'll grant I have as much morbid curiosity as the next man, probably more, and I'll admit to have found it interesting that -- judging from his ubiquitous Youtube-suicide dump (I'm sure y'all can find it) -- the Virginia Tech killer, Cho Seung Hui, also seems to have recently seen Oldboy (and The Killer.) That being said, I'm with the families of the deceased: It was ridiculously offensive on the part of the press scorps to give this murderous chump his much-desired fifteen minutes, even after death, and to plaster his visage all over every media outlet for 18 hours like a two-bit Travis Bickel. CNN's clearly been trying to rectify by putting the victims on their front page at the moment, but too little, too late. I'm reminded of Sirhan Sirhan's famous quote: "They can gas me, but I am famous. I have achieved in one day what it took Robert Kennedy all his life to do." Please, let's not play into these sick bastards' games anymore. I'm sorry Cho's life turned out to be a sad and pathetic one, but let him just be consigned to the ignominious dustbin of psycho killer history, where he belongs. He was a lonely, depressed, raging, and homicidal young man, who lost any claim to sympathy when he started randomly firing at people -- We're not going to understand him any better by throwing up his obscene posthumous vanity portraits in every nook and cranny of the national culture.

That being said, using Cho less as a poster-child for his own sick revenge fantasies and more as one for sensible gun control laws makes a little more sense to me. Now I understand that real gun control is sadly something of a non-starter in this country, and that mandatory gun safety training, for example, is the type of thing that might pay more dividends over time so long as the second amendment remains interpreted as it is. And naturally, the NRA is already ready to push back on any attempt to tie this awful incident to easy access to weaponry. But it seems abundantly clear: Whether we need a new law or just need to enforce the old ones, people who've already been declared certifiable by a federal judge should have a little harder time procuring two firearms than did Cho. Can we at least agree on that?

The 2007 Pulitzers are announced: Cormac McCarthy wins the fiction prize for The Road; Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 takes non-fiction; Gene Roberts and Hank Klibanoff win the history prize for The Race Beat: The Press, the Civil Rights Struggle, and the Awakening of a Nation, and Debby Applegate's biography The Most Famous Man in America: The Biography of Henry Ward Beecher wins in that category. Congrats to all.

"It sounds harsh, but think of most of the Fox Democrats, at least those who appear on the opinion shows, which take up half the network's airtime, as one of three types. They are either scary liberals, losers or enablers. Representatives of each type may score some points for Democrats when they appear on-air, but ultimately they help further Fox's larger narrative about Democrats and liberals and what they stand for." Also in Salon, Alex Koppelman takes a gander at FOX News's usual go-to stable of kept Dems.

Anna Nicole Smith died after what looks to be a casino bender, and, just in time for Valentine's Day, Houston has a problem with crazy-jilted astronauts. I have very little to say about either of these stories, but since they feverishly consumed most of this week's news cycles, here they are.

"The defense has two ways to negate Russert's powerful testimony: 1) They can say his memory's bad. They've tried, with mixed results. 2) They can say he's lying. But then they need to show a motive to lie. If fear of embarrassment is the best they've come up with, I think they're in trouble." The prosecution rests in the Scooter Libby trial, after a two-day appearance by -- and defense grilling of -- NBC's Tim Russert.

"She believed in democratic politics and hated it when people didn't exercise their rights to vote and protest. She believed in government and hated it when people ran it down." Molly Ivins, 1944-2007. "Her columns and essays -- and for that matter her wonderful, low, smoky voice, if you were lucky enough to hear her talk -- used her regional sensibility and experience to illuminate the wider world. She talked Texas but her subject was the universe."

"He was this gentle giant," said Bob Schieffer, CBS's chief Washington correspondent and a close friend..."He was a great role model." Ed Bradley, 1941-2006.

"Alas, poor Brit, it was too much for him to bear in the end, I'm afraid. You almost had to feel sorry for the guy...I said almost." Salon's Andrew O'Hehir evaluates last night's election coverage on FOX News. I admit, I also switched over to FOX in the late hours just to revel in all the sweet, sweet schadenfreude. I'm forced to concede, though, that their graphics were much better than CNN's -- you could actually tell how many House seats Dems were picking up all night over the needed 15, while CNN dropped that ball as soon as the Senate got tight. At any rate, for angry right-wing teeth-gnashing, nothing on FOX topped Stephen Colbert's hilarious speel last night at the end of the otherwise middling Midterm Midtacular (Click on "Stephen Quits," in case you missed it.)

"What's maddening is the way Woodward reverses his point of view without acknowledging he ever had one -- then or now. You could charge him with flattering politicians only when they're up, and piling on when they're down. But you might as well accuse a weathervane of changing its mind about which way the wind should blow." Slate's Jacob Weisberg examines Bob Woodward's treatment of Donald Rumsfeld through his three Dubya books (most recently State of Denial) and finds him a fickle beast at best.

"The disclosures so far have been devastating. The book paints the administration as clueless, dishonest, and dysfunctional." Slate's John Dickinson surveys the likely political impact of Bob Woodward's State of Denial, which broke today (in the NYT, strangely enough) and which is apparently much more critical of the neocons than his last two puff pieces, Plan of Attack and Bush at War. Of course, we've all known that the Dubya White House is chock-full of scheming, untrustworthy, incompetent loons for years now, but apparently, when Bob Woodward finally figures it out, it's suddenly newsworthy. Oh well, I'll take it.

By way of a friend in the program, it's the NYT through right-wing eyes. Well, that explains a few things.

He can turn and walk away or he can fire the gun...Having eluded the press and apparently entering his existential period, Dubya totes around Camus's The Stranger in Crawford. Update: Slate's John Dickerson has more.

"For nearly the entire time of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew -- independent of me -- the identity of the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003...I have promised to discuss my role in the investigation when permitted by the prosecution, and I do so now." In a column published today, DoL Robert Novak finally comes clean -- sort of -- about his sources in Plamegate. In the piece, Novak names Karl Rove (big surprise) and CIA spokesman Bill Harlow as his two confirmers of Plame's identity, but still refuses to out the "senior Bush administration official" who served as his initial source (although he does say that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is well aware of that person's identity.)

"Where is the analyst at a firm called Forrester Research who used to be quoted everywhere calling us, witlessly, 'the Slatanic'? Haven't heard much from him lately." A happy 10th anniversary to Michael Kinsley's Slate, home to Dahlia Lithwick, Fred Kaplan, Seth Stevenson, and several other writers and journalists invariably worth checking out.

Even more Snoopgate fallout: As last week's bombshell story in USA Today makes the covers of the major newsweekies, two ABC reporters say their calls to sources are being monitored. "A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we call in an effort to root out confidential sources. 'It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick,' the source told us in an in-person conversation."

"'We have had other hot -- I hate to use that word -- videos that generated a lot of buzz,' said Rob Kennedy, executive vice president of C-Span, which was founded in 1979. 'But this is the first time it has occurred since the advent of the video clipping sites.'" Kicking Youtube and iFilm aside, C-Span decides it wants to make some money on the Colbert Correspondents' Dinner.

"Limbaugh likens the agreement to a verdict of 'not guilty.' That isn't remotely true. Newsweek came closer to the mark when it labeled the outcome 'a slap on the wrist.'" Slate's Tim Noah breaks down the pertinent documents in the Limbaugh case.

"Colbert's deadly performance did more than reveal, with devastating clarity, how Bush's well-oiled myth machine works. It exposed the mainstream press' pathetic collusion with an administration that has treated it -- and the truth -- with contempt from the moment it took office. Intimidated, coddled, fearful of violating propriety, the press corps that for years dutifully repeated Bush talking points was stunned and horrified when someone dared to reveal that the media emperor had no clothes." Salon's Joan Walsh adds her voice to the many of us who feel compelled to say: Thank You, Stephen Colbert! (2nd link via Cliopatria/Trepanatus.)

"Battered by accusations of a liberal bias and determined to prove their conservative critics wrong, the press during the run-up to the war -- timid, deferential, unsure, cautious, and often intentionally unthinking -- came as close as possible to abdicating its reason for existing in the first place, which is to accurately inform citizens, particularly during times of great national interest." In very related news (as Dan Froomkin pointed out), Salon publishes an extended excerpt from Eric Boehlert's Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over For Bush.

"'Our estimates imply that Fox News convinced 3 to 8 percent of its audience to shift its voting behavior towards the Republican Party, a sizable media persuasion effect,' said Stefano DellaVigna of the University of California at Berkeley and Ethan Kaplan of Stockholm University." Also in the same vein, the Post's Richard Morin summarizes a new academic study on the "Fox News Effect", which, according to its authors, may have "produced more than 10,000 additional votes for Bush" in Florida in 2000.

"I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq." In a must-watch (or at least must-read) event, the inimitable Stephen Colbert took it to Dubya hard at last night's White House Correspondent's dinner, and Bush, according to press reports, was not amused. Great stuff throughout:

* "I believe in pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. I believe it is possible -- I saw this guy do it once in Cirque du Soleil. It was magical. And though I am a committed Christian, I believe that everyone has the right to their own religion, be it Hindu, Jewish or Muslim. I believe our infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior."

* "Now, I know there's some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality.' And reality has a well-known liberal bias...Sir pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, because 32% means it's 2/3 empty. There's still some liquid in that glass is my point, but I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash."

* "I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world."

* "I'm sorry, but this reading initiative. I've never been a fan of books. I don't trust them. They're all fact, no heart. I mean, they're elitist telling us what is or isn't true, what did or didn't happen. What's Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was built in 1914. If I want to say it was built in 1941, that's my right as an American. I'm with the president, let history decide what did or did not happen. The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday, that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday."

* "But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on N.S.A. wiretapping or secret prisons in Eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason, they're superdepressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished. Over the last five years you people were so good over tax cuts, W.M.D. intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew."

* "But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The President makes decisions, he's the decider. The Press Secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know, fiction."

* "I mean, nothing satisfies you. Everybody asks for personnel changes. So the White House has personnel changes. Then you write they're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. First of all, that is a terrible metaphor. This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg."

* "See who we've got here tonight. General Mowsly, Air Force Chief of Staff. General Peter Pace. They still support Rumsfeld. You guys aren't retired yet, right? Right, they still support Rumsfeld."

* "Jesse Jackson is here. I had him on the show. Very interesting and challenging interview. You can ask him anything, but he's going to say what he wants at the pace that he wants. It's like boxing a glacier. Enjoy that metaphor, because your grandchildren will have no idea what a glacier is." (Note: YouTube has smaller clips, too.)

That font of compassion for drug addicts, Rush Limbaugh, cuts a deal with prosecutors, copping to a lesser charge of prescription fraud that will be stricken from his record should he stay in rehab for 18 months. "A spokesman for the state's attorney's office, Mike Edmondson, said the agreement dropping the charge is 'standard for first-time offenders who admit their addiction.'" Well it wouldn't be if Rush had anything to say about it...

So it's looking increasingly likely that Tony Snow of FOX News will replace Scott McClellan as White House press secretary. Good of 'em to eliminate the middleman -- Why filter the ridiculous right-wing spin through your in-pocket cable news network, when you can just spout the garbage directly from the Brady Room of the West Wing? Update: Snow takes the job.

TIME Magazine unveils Josh Bolten's new five-point plan for righting the Dubya presidency: 1) Act tough on immigration with "guns and badges"; 2) Humor Wall Street with extensions on capital gains and dividend tax cuts; 3) "brag more"; 4) Talk tough at Iran; and 5) play nice with the press. So, wait, we're going to war with Iran just so Bolten can squeeze six more months out of lame duck Dubya? Brilliant.

Man, you should have seen them kicking Scott McClellan. In related news, "I'm the Decider," to the tune of I am the Walrus." (Where did I find this? The walrus was Paul.)

I dannae if the ship of state could take any more...As suspected, the continuing White House shakeup claims another victim in press secretary Scott McClellan. (Text of statement.) Also, Rove got reassigned from policy to politics, but that sounds like more of a cosmetic switch than anything else.

As you likely heard, the 2006 Pulitzer Prizes were announced yesterday. Special kudos go to the WP team of Susan Schmidt, James Grimaldi, and R. Jeffrey Smith for helping to expose Casino Jack; to the Post's Dana Priest for disclosing Dubya's secret gulags; to the NYT's Nicholas Kristof for his consistently excellent commentary on world issues that merit more US (and GitM) attention; to historians David Oshinsky, Kai Bird, and Martin Sherwin for their recent books on polio and J. Robert Oppenheimer respectively; and to the inimitable Edmund Morgan -- one of my favorite historians -- who won a special citation for his "creative and deeply influential body of work" over the last half-century.

Sit down before you read this one, folks. In the well-duh dept., the Post front-pages the following story today: "Anger at Bush May Hurt GOP at Polls." Really? Who woulda thunk it? Next you'll be telling me that Santorum might be going down too.

While Dubya and the GOP continue to smear and threaten the whistleblowers who exposed this administration's recent egregious violations of civil liberties -- the warrantless wiretaps or the secret gulags, for example -- papers filed by Plamegate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald disclose that Scooter Libby was actually told to leak classified information to the press by Dubya and Cheney (although not necessarily the identity of Valerie Plame.) "Libby said he understood that 'he was to tell [Judith] Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium,' Fitzgerald wrote." Replied DNC chair Howard Dean today, "The fact that the president was willing to reveal classified information for political gain and put the interests of his political party ahead of America's security shows that he can no longer be trusted to keep America safe." At the very least, given his own penchant for selective leaking, it means Dubya is being a tremendous hypocrite every time he starts equating whistleblowers with terrorist sympathizers, and that his repeated promise to find the leakers in his administration is roughly equivalent to OJ's hunt for the real killers. Update: ABC's John Cochran and Salon's Farhad Manjoo break down the implications. Update 2: Fitzgerald makes a correction.

"Some say that if you're Muslim you can't be free." In a piece that's drawn some controversy -- God forbid our newsmedia call out the President when he's making stuff up -- the AP's Jennifer Loven scrutinizes Dubya's rhetorical reliance on straw man arguments. Many find Loven's piece convincing.

"That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption." Former Post editor Ben Bradlee, who claims to know the identity of Bob Woodward's source on the Plame leak, seemed to suggest to Vanity Fair that it was Richard Armitage. When asked about his comments yesterday, Bradlee backtracked: "'I don't think I said it,' Bradlee said. 'I know who his source is, and I don't want to get into it. . . . I have not told a soul who it is.'"

At a time of incipient civil war in Iraq, civil liberties under siege here at home, and corruption festering in the Capitol, CNN publishes a hard-hitting special report on that critical issue facing the republic, a pet's modern life. I think Berkeley speaks for all Sheltie-Americans on this issue when he says, "Ruff."

With a tip-off from the Progressive Patriots Fund, I had the opportunity yesterday to catch Sen. Russ Feingold speak on the Patriot Act and the NSA wiretapping scandal over at Cardozo Law School. (Their pics are a lot better than mine -- I forgot to charge my batteries, and thus only got in 2 or 3 shots before my camera died on me.) And how was he? Well, all-in-all, he came off as a convincing candidate for the election ahead, as well as an impressive, informed, and personable fellow. To be honest, I found his remarks a bit lawyerly (then again, he's a lawyer speaking before a law school, so that's not really a fair criticism), but, taken in full, he seemed a committeed progressive and a refreshingly candid leader, the type of dynamic, independent thinker the Senate should be teeming with, if the system came anywhere close to working these days.



The gist of Sen. Feingold's remarks was thus: Al Qaeda is the central threat facing America and has been since 9/11. Yet, instead of bringing the nation together to eliminate this terrorist organization, the Dubya White House has chosen time and time again to endanger our national security and compromise our most fundamental American values for their own ideological or power-hoarding purposes. (Iraq, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, secret gulags, you name it.) Along those lines and as we now all know, the Patriot Act, which only Feingold voted against in 2001, contains some terrible provisions therein, the most notorious example affecting Middle America being Section 215 (which gives law enforcement, among other things, the right to see what you've been reading.)

Yet, as per the norm, Dubya has refused to admit that it's even possible that something might be wrong with the Patriot Act now that it's up for renewal -- only that it's necessary to defeat the evildoers and that any microscopic change in the statute could rend the fabric of freedom irreparably. (Despite this now-somewhat hoary ploy, Feingold and others have succeeded in blocking a permanent blanket extension for now, as y'all know if you've been visiting here lately.) And, of course, Dubya has taken this same tack of obfuscation and fear-mongering to cover up his brazen wiretapping power-grab -- which, according to Congress's own research arm, broke at least two laws and counting.

Again, this story is not news to many Dems out there, but Feingold laid it out in clear, comprehensible, and systematic fashion. (The only "breaking news" made was the Senator announcing this letter to Gonzales, asking him why he, in effect, lied to the Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings about the NSA wiretaps.) And he had some good lines throughout -- In reply to Rove's ridiculous claim that Dems were "pre-9/11", Feingold quipped that the GOP suffered from a "pre-1776" mentality these days. (He also retold the recent Patrick Henry exchange.) To be honest, I'd liked to have heard more in this vein -- In terms of breaking down the legislative legerdemain and legal issues at hand, Feingold was superb. But I thought the speech needed more narrative sweep and rhetorical grandeur, more explanation of why this battle matters so much to the workings of the republic. He doesn't have to turn into Robert Byrd overnight. Still, I thought the remarks could have benefited from more dramatic heft and historical resonance: Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Lincoln, Wilson...they're all relevant here. (Then again, as I said above, I was an historian sitting in a room full of lawyers, so I was a tougher sell than most.)

Along those lines, if there was a problem with this presentation, it's that the Senator, while clearly outraged, at times seemed much less livid about all this than many in the audience, who occasionally sounded ready to hoist the black flag. (In fact, many will no doubt be happy to hear that Feingold was asked twice "why Democrats are so lame." As he noted (and as the blogosphere can attest this week), if a crowd in New York City is this irate with the party, the Dems might be in serious trouble nationwide in November. Still, he also emphasized that the Democrats could be more effective fighters if they actually controlled a house of Congress -- You can't hold hearings if you're in the minority.

In terms of other questions, Feingold said he supports and will take part in the very late-developing (and now already defunct) Alito filbuster (Roll Call.) In fact, he thought the Dems made a crucial mistake in capitulating to the original "Gang of 14" compromise, arguing cogently that Dems have seen nothing for it and may well have had the votes to win Catkiller's game of nuclear chicken. Since Casino Jack and lobbying reform seemed too big a subject to address competently in the time allotted, I asked him a question about his thoughts on the NYT decision to spike the NSA story for a year, his general view of the mass media's performance in serving as a check on these types of executive abuses, and ('cause it seemed apropos) his thoughts on the burgeoning blogosphere's role in all this. He didn't really go after the Times decision, and said that, in terms of the recent Patriot Act debate, he thought the press had actually done an ok job. Regarding blogs, he called the Internet "a miracle for populist politics," which was a good enough soundbite that everyone in my row dutifully wrote it down at the same time.

And, of course, Sen. Feingold was asked -- a couple of times -- whether or not he was running for President in 2008. Naturally, he played it coy -- After all, we still have just under two years before the Iowa caucus. But, for what it's worth, I was impressed by him -- He's not a first-class emoter like Edwards or Clinton, of course. Instead, he comes across as a highly intelligent, capable, and nuanced thinker, a la Bradley, Kerry, or Gore on his better days. But unlike those three, he also seemed much more comfortable in his own skin, more naturally himself at the podium, and -- most importantly -- more content to play the maverick if his lefty principles dictate thus. (Although, as I said, I'd like to see him tone down the lawyer-ese and rev up more Wellstone-ish fire if he does make a White House run.) I suppose there's a small, bordering-on-infinitesimal chance that Rodham Clinton, Biden, Warner, or someone else might drop all the "New Democrat" protective camouflage this time around and begin loudly and undefensively proclaiming progressive principles to the Heavens. But, until that unlikely event, my candidate in the 2008 Democratic primary is Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. (Update: 1776 link via Medley.)

"I'm not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling, I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap." Along the lines of (2006 Oscars host) Jon Stewart on Crossfire in 2004, a driven-to-anger David Letterman goes after guest Bill O'Reilly on Cindy Sheehan, the war in Iraq, and his "fair and balanced" drivel. "I agree to you, with you that we have to support the troops. They are there, they are the best and the brightest of this country...however, that does not eliminate the legitimate speculation and concern and questioning of 'Why the Hell are we there to begin with?'" (Via Dumbmonkey.)

"One final note: Luskin is unhappy that I decided to write about our conversation, but I feel that he violated any understanding to keep our talk confidential by unilaterally going to Fitzgerald and telling him what was said." TIME reporter Viveca Novak explains her testimony before the Fitzgerald grand jury. Novak, who may well have tipped Luskin to a hole in Rove's story, is now on a leave of absence with TIME "by mutual agreement."

"Even as the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development pay contractors millions of dollars to help train journalists and promote a professional and independent Iraqi media, the Pentagon is paying millions more to the Lincoln Group for work that appears to violate fundamental principles of Western journalism." According to today's NYT and in keeping with the Dubya administration's penchant for rigging the media, it appears the Pentagon has been paying for planted propaganda in Iraqi newspapers. "'You show the world you're not living by the principles you profess to believe in, and you lose all credibility.'"

Meanwhile, the investigations continue. This weekend, Time reporter Viveca Novak announced she's cooperating with Plamegate prosecutors, who have been asking her about her conversations with Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's attorney, beginning in 2004. Doesn't sound like Rove is off the hook, does it? Update: Apparently, Novak was Rove's alibi: "'This is what caused [Fitzgerald] to hold off on charging' Rove, the source said. But another person familiar with the conversations said they did not appear to significantly alter the case."

Washington Post editor Bob Woodward testifies to the Fitzgerald grand jury about a third senior White House official involved in disclosing the identity of Valerie Plame, besides Libby and Rove. (Woodward's statement.) This means Libby likely wasn't the first to leak Plame's identity, but the new info has no bearing on his perjury or obstruction of justice indictments.

For Woodward's part, his statement and public comments about the case alternate between high dudgeon ("It was the first time in 35 years as a reporter that I have been asked to provide information to a grand jury") and open ridicule ("When I think all of the facts come out in this case, it's going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great.") Mostly, he just seems cranky that he -- award-winning journalist Bob Woodward! -- was forced to take time away from another puff piece book on Dubya to testify about a felony in the White House. But this isn't news. Frankly, Woodward has been embarrassing his legacy for years...almost any of his talking-head stints on Larry King illustrate that. Since at least the early Clinton years, he's been more desirous of maintaining his high profile and insider status than in promoting good journalism or good government. (And in that, he's reflected the trajectory of many in the newsmedia.) Update: The Post is somewhat irked.

"Even before I went to jail, I had become a lightning rod for public fury over the intelligence failures that helped lead our country to war...I believed then, and still do, that the answer to bad information is more reporting. " To no one's surprise, Judy Miller "retires" from the New York Times, but not before getting in one last word (and setting up her own website.) Well, she was way wrong on WMD, but she's right about this: The best thing the NYT can do to restore its credibility after Judy and Jayson Blair would be to lead an investigatory charge into the pre-war Iraq intelligence, and pronto.

A day after a report by the Inspector General on his tenure (and his questionable use of agency money), Kenneth Tomlinson, he of the axe to grind with Bill Moyers, resigns as chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. "Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, an advocacy group, said: 'It was time that Mr. Tomlinson stepped down. He has engaged in unethical, if not illegal, behavior.'" But don't jump for joy just yet, Buster: Even with Tomlinson gone, conservatives still rule the roost at CPB.

"No, this program is dedicated to you, the heroes!...And who are the heroes? The people who watch this show -- average, hardworking Americans. You're not the elites, you're not the country club crowd. I know for a fact that my country club would never let you in. But you get it! And you come from a long line of it-getters!" Reviews come in grippy for the first installment of The Colbert Report, Comedy Central's answer to The O'Reilly Factor. His opening monologue (at the official site) is well-worth watching.

"Greg Mitchell, who edits Editor & Publisher, writes, 'Miller did far more damage to her newspaper than did Jayson Blair, and that's not even counting her WMD reporting, which hurt and embarrassed the paper in other ways.' Jay Rosen concurs. 'There's no question,' he says, 'this is bigger than Jayson Blair.'
Salon's Farhad Manjoo deconstructs the NY Times coverage of Judy Miller's involvement in Plamegate (available here), and explains why Cheney chief Lewis Libby, in particular, may now be facing an obstruction of justice charge. If it's any consolation, Scooter, Rove's in hot water, too.

While perhaps a bit too black-and-white in terms of the history, George Clooney's Good Night, and Good Luck is nevertheless a somber and captivating paean to Edward R. Murrow, his televised expose of Joe McCarthy, and, by extension, the Pioneer Days of Television Journalism. (In this last regard, it's somewhat reminiscent of the excellent Clooney-produced live TV version of Fail Safe a few years ago.) It's also assuredly a smoother, subtler, and more accomplished bit of muckraking than, say, Tim Robbins' recent and lamentably over-the-top Embedded. Once again displaying the surprisingly strong directorial sense he exhibited in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Clooney also benefits here from a smartly written script which refuses to talk down to its audience, the crisp black-and-white cinematography, and quality performances across the board. As a result, what could have been an above-average History Channel documentary is instead a powerful and intelligent work of cinema that's easily one of the better films out this year.

Admittedly, as Jack Shafer pointed out in Slate, Good Night, and Good Luck is rather narrowly focused, and works better as an impassioned and articulate morality play than it does as sound history. The Murrow of this film is saintly to a fault (although David Straitharn ameliorates this with a sardonic and multifaceted performance that may well get some nods come award time.) And there's very little historical context offered herein, either for the origins of the McCarthy hysteria or for the Wisconsin Senator's ultimate downfall, which had more to do with picking a fight with the army than with the Murrow broadcast.

That being said, I really like the way Clooney uses archival footage in this film. For one, Clooney was clever to follow Murrow's example and let Joe McCarthy hoist himself on his own petard. Having the real McCarthy excoriate Murrow as the "leader of the jackal pack" gives the film a sense of history (and menace) that an actorly turn couldn't have provided. For another, Clooney, who definitely appears to have done his homework, is unafraid to cut to real historical footage -- the Annie Lee Moss hearings, for example -- for extended periods, and just let the inherent drama of the real proceedings speak for itself. As a result, the history feels alive and contemporary, no mean feat when so many other historical films seem to use the past as merely exotic window dressing. Could the film have been more nuanced in its appraisal of both Murrow and McCarthyism? Undoubtedly. (Then again, nuanced appraisals weren't exactly McCarthy's strong point, either., nor is it a long suit of his current defenders.) But on the whole, Good Night, and Good Luck is, I think, a worthy exercise in historical filmmaking, and one with some obvious relevance in light of today's entertainment-addled, sideshow-obsessed news media.

Movie-wise, there are a few small problems. I think the GN, & GL should have done either more or less with Robert Downey, Jr. and Patricia Clarkson as Wershbas Joe and Shirley -- their particular plight doesn't tie in to the rest of the story very well. And, while Ray Wise is good as the broadcaster-at-wits-end Don Hollenbeck, he's also typecast in my mind -- I kept expecting him to break into the Leland Palmer dance. All in all, though, Good Night, and Good Luck manages to enliven both the staid television studios of Fifties CBS and this historical moment with smoky jazz, languishing cigarettes, and ominous shadows. As the show says, see it now.

By way of Breaching the Web and Medley, the Hurricane Katrina timeline. Think My Pet Goat extended over several days. Nevertheless, the GOP is rallying around Dubya: "Just 17 percent of Democrats said they approved of the way Bush was handling the Katrina crisis while 74 percent of Republicans said they approved." Update: Out of sight, out of mind? Update 2: The Post's Terry Neal has more. Update 3: The government backs down on the media blackout after threat of a lawsuit by CNN.

Soon after posting the last entry, I found a new cache of trailers for films around the corner over at Coming Soon: First off, Edward Murrow takes a journalistic stand against McCarthyism (with much explicit contemporary relevance) in the trailer for George Clooney's Good Night and Good Luck, starring David Straitharn, Clooney, Patricia Clarkson, Robert Downey, Jr., Jeff Daniels, and Frank Langella. Then, Charlize Theron braves borderline winds, the mining life, and sexual harassment in the preview for North Country, also with Frances McDormand, Sissy Spacek, Woody Harrelson, Sean Bean, and Richard Jenkins. Meanwhile, law partners John Cusack and Billy Bob Thornton look for the big score in Harold Ramis' The Ice Harvest, with Randy Quaid, Connie Nielsen, and Oliver Platt. And, finally, journalist Alison Lohman looks into the racy reasons behind the demise of comedy team Bacon & Firth in Atom Egoyan's Where the Truth Lies (recently saddled with a NC-17), and video gamer Allen Covert pays respect to his elders in the trailer for the Adam-Sandler produced Grandma's Boy. (To be honest, I'm only blogging this last one for the "don't judge me" monkey bit and the too-brief glimpse of the lovely Linda "Lindsey Weir" Cardellini.) Update: Ok, one more: Tilda Swinton, Vincent D'Onofrio, Vince Vaughn, Benjamin Bratt and Keanu Reeves try to help newcomer Lou Pucci stop a nasty habit in the trailer for Thumbsucker, due out in just over two weeks.

"The self-described 'prince of darkness' appears blinded by the light. He cannot see himself as everyone else does. He has called so much attention to himself that he casts no shadow at all. He is completely exposed." Sidney Blumenthal puts the skewers to Bob Novak.

R.I.P. Peter Jennings 1938-2005.

"It was unbelievable. They didn't show a lot of what really went on with the enemy attacks and the shelling. There was so much stuff that went on and somehow the tapes got mysteriously misplaced." Jessica Simpson discovers her and husband Nick Lachey's experiences in Iraq have been edited down for carefree consumption. Yep, they keep lyin' when they oughta be truthin'.

"It's not necessarily clear that a press engaged in a tabloid-esque race to the bottom, consumed by sensationalist pseudo-stories, nuggets of McNews and flag-waving rhetoric, is a free press in any meaningful sense of the term," writes Salon's Andrew O'Hehir in a thoughtful piece on the Judith Miller case. But, he concludes, "[c]ompelling a reporter to reveal his or her sources to the police turns that reporter into a police agent, and that's not acceptable, even in unsavory circumstances like these." Update: Salon readers poke some substantial holes in O'Hehir's argument. Update 2: O'Hehir responds.

As a counterpoint, Slate's Jacob Weisberg argues the following: "To Miller and the Times, confidentiality is the trump value of journalism, one that outweighs all other considerations, including obedience to the law, the public interest, and perhaps even loyalty to country. This is indeed a strong principle, but it is a misguided one. In the Mafia, keeping confidences is the supreme value. In journalism, the highest value is the discovery and publication of the truth."

And one more view by way of James Fallows, who's written quite a bit on journalistic ethics in his time: "So Time Inc's Norman Pearlstein says he will turn over Matthew Cooper's notes, because Time magazine is 'not above the law.'...Matt Cooper, Judith Miller, and the New York Times have been saying something completely different. They have been saying that there is a conflict between what the law asks and what their professional values allow them to do. Therefore they will take the consequences. They will go to jail....They are not placing themselves above the law. They are saying that certain values matter more to them than doing what the law now (outrageously, in my view) asks them to do. Norman Pearlstein is a smart man. Can he really have missed this point? Or is he acknowledging that another set of values have come to count for more, in large-scale corporate-owned journalism?"

From the folks behind Drop the Hammer: Be a Witness, a site which calls out the national newsmedia for ignoring genocide in Darfur in favor of the Jackson case and myriad damsels in distress. While we're at it, more coverage of the war we're mired in might be nice too...y'know, the one over in Iraq.

The GOP attempts to break PBS grow murkier, as Dems unearth a right-wing stooge secretly on CPB President's Kenneth Tomlinson's payroll, assigned to track "bias" on Bill Moyer's NOW. Nebraska Senator Byron "Dorgan said that data concluded in one episode of 'Now' that Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, was a 'liberal' because he questioned the White House policy on Iraq and that a second 'Now' segment on financial waste at the Pentagon was 'anti-Defense.'

"'This could literally put us out of business,' said Paul Stankavich, president and general manager of the Alaska Public Radio Network, an alliance of 26 stations in the state that create and share news programming." Well, that's the idea. The House GOP moves to kill off the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, getting rid of liberal Bill Moyers and that lesbian-loving rabbit in one fell swoop. "'Americans overwhelmingly see public broadcasting as an unbiased information source,' Rep. David Obey (Wis.), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, said in a statement. 'Perhaps that's what the GOP finds so offensive about it. Republican leaders are trying to bring every facet of the federal government under their control...Now they are trying to put their ideological stamp on public broadcasting.'"

"A damsel must be white. This requirement is nonnegotiable. It helps if her frame is of dimensions that breathless cable television reporters can credibly describe as 'petite,' and it also helps if she's the kind of woman who wouldn't really mind being called 'petite,' a woman with a good deal of princess in her personality...Put all this together, and you get 24-7 coverage." The Post's Eugene Robinson deconstructs the "Damsel in Distress" genre so beloved by today's newsmedia. Obviously, if a friend or family member disappeared under strange circumstances, I might want some degree of media coverage in order to help find her. But, the amount of round-the-clock national attention devoted to these sad stories (and rubbernecking drek like the Michael Jackson trial) is patently ridiculous. Hey, don't look now, but our nation is at war right now.

"When is it time to start referring to Bush as an unpopular president? When his approval ratings are solidly below 50 percent for at least three months? Check. When his approval ratings on his signature issues are in the red? Check. When a clear majority of Americans say he is ignoring the public's concerns and instead has become distracted by issues that most people say they care little about? Check." Dubya's numbers continue to plunge. Want some unsolicited advice, Mr. President? Let's hear more about Third World debt relief, and fewer blanket endorsements of the Patriot Act. Update: In not-unrelated news, faith in the newsmedia also hits a low.

Ambitious Dems Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. and Governor Mark Warner try to establish their presidential bona fides by joining in on the anti-Dean pileup. I wouldn't have used Deans's "white christian" line -- We shouldn't be in the business of reinforcing the GOP's hold on white Christian voters, particularly when so much of the Republicans' bellicose, intolerant, and avarice-fueled agenda is flagrantly anti-Christian in any real sense. Today's GOP may talk the talk of Jesus, but their leaders continually prostrate themselves before the altar of Mammon. As any good Christian knows, you can't serve them both.

All that being said, it's highly dismaying to watch the Dems eat their own like this. Obviously, our lazy, cowed excuse for a national newsmedia is going to leap at every possible note of intemperance to emanate from Dr. Dean, because it's an easy story that won't tick off the White House and doesn't involve much in the way of reporting. So every two-bit Democratic official that wants to start generating some media buzz and moderate cred for a 2008 bid is currently mouthing off to reporters about the former Governor of Vermont.

Do Republicans do this? Not hardly. I don't remember GOP officials rushing to lambast Bill Frist for his "against people of faith" photo-op, or Tom DeLay for all the garbage that routinely comes out of his mouth, to say nothing of all the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Coulters, etc. But one Dem uses stronger rhetoric than usual to characterize the opposition and we fall over each other to condemn him in the name of electable statesmanship. It's pathetic. Word to the wise, Dems: Let Dean be Dean -- we didn't pick him for his social nicety -- and concentrate your rhetorical firepower on the opposing trench.

"Sound the klaxons! Corporate Message breakdown at Fox News! This is not a drill. Repeat: This is not a drill." Slate's Tim Noah catches a Fox News exec admitting conservative bias. You don't say.

"Today's conservative activists have become the new postmodernists. They shift attention away from the truth or falsity of specific facts and allegations -- and move the discussion to the motives of the journalists and media organizations putting them forward." By way of Crooked Timber, E.J. Dionne calls out the po-mo bent of today's GOP.

Exemplifying MTV's consistent downward spiral since the heady days of Rock the Vote and Randee of the Redwoods (yes, I just dated myself), Nine Inch Nails drops out of a performance at the Movie Awards after the network got nervous about (gasp!) a "partisan political statement." "'We were set to perform "The Hand That Feeds" with an unmolested, straightforward image of George W. Bush as the backdrop. Apparently, the image of our president is as offensive to MTV as it is to me,' Nine Inch Nails' leader Trent Reznor said in a statement posted on the band's Web site." Hmmm. Well, maybe the Breakfast Club will pick up Reznor's standard... (Last link via Freakgirl.)

Salon's Eric Boehlert explains how Kenneth Tomlinson, the Dubya crony trying to turn PBS into FOX News, is probably not the best judge of fairness or balance going -- He and his hand-picked ombudsman both worked for Fulton Lewis Jr., the rabidly anti-FDR and pro-McCarthy Rush Limbaugh of his day.

The Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington's answer to Matt Drudge, went live today, with a handful of celebrity postings (for example, John Cusack on Hunter) and a blogroll of the usual suspects. Seems ok, I guess, although I think Huffington would do well to make the site layout look less like the print version of The Onion.

The first pic from Goodnight & Good Luck, George Clooney's forthcoming film about Edward Murrow's televised unmasking of Joe McCarthy, is now online. The cast includes Clooney (Fred Friendly), David Straitharn (Murrow), Frank Langella (Bill Paley), Patricia Clarkson, Jeff Daniels, and Robert Downey, Jr.

"Last November, members of the Association of Public Television Stations met in Baltimore along with officials from the corporation and PBS. Mr. Tomlinson told them they should make sure their programming better reflected the Republican mandate." Perturbed primarily by Bill Moyers' Now, Dubya flunky and CPB chairman Kenneth Tomlinson cites objectivity and balance in his attempt to FOX-ify PBS.

Perhaps someone should explain to Tomlinson that many people don't think of journalistic "objectivity" or "balance" as finding the exact median between the left and whatever loony garbage the far-right is spouting on a given issue, but in holding up political rhetoric of both parties to pesky little things called "facts." (Hence, the reality-based community.)

Lucasfilm releases a Episode III music video entitled A Hero Falls, which includes occasional bits of new footage scattered amongst the trailer stuff (as well as some cringeworthy Hayden Christiansen line readings.) For what it's worth, John Williams' Sith score (which will include an impressive-sounding DVD of music from all six films) generally sounds much darker and more intriguing than this rather bland excerpt.

Also in SW news, Episode III gets the Corliss treatment for a Time cover story which includes this gallery from the film. (Hey, I'll take it over Ann Coulter.) And, in another cover story, Wired queries George Lucas about his post-SW plans. "'I've earned the right to just make things that I find provocative in my own way,' he says. 'I've earned the right to fail, which means making what I think are really great movies that no one wants to see.'

"[I]f DeLay goes, there will be people in Washington congratulating themselves on having been part of a system that, once again, 'worked,' fumigating itself of an intruder who went too far and didn't accept the rules. Nonsense. The system isn't working by a long shot. If the system had worked, DeLay would have been exposed long ago -- first by the media, which would have done far more to reveal the ethical and procedural corruption of his regime, and second by moderate Republicans, who could have made a difference if they'd had the nerve, en bloc, to stand up and say something." The American Prospect's Michael Tomasky explains the sad structural reasons why Boss DeLay has managed to stick around for so long.

Articles worth reading on GOP involvement in the continuing Schiavo fiasco:

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick: "This morning's decision by Congress and President Bush -- to authorize new federal legislation that will obliterate years of state court litigation, and justify re-inserting a feeding tube into Terri Schiavo, based on new and illusory federal constitutional claims -- is not about law. It is congressional activism, plain and simple; legislative overreaching and hubris taken to absurd extremes."

Salon's Eric Boehlert: "The Schiavo episode highlights not only how far to the right the GOP-controlled Congress has lunged -- a 2003 Fox News poll found just 2 percent of Americans think the government should decide this type of right-to-die issue -- but also how paralyzed the mainstream press has become in pointing out the obvious: that the GOP leadership often operates well outside the mainstream of America. The press's timidity is important because publicizing the poll results might extend the debate from one that focuses exclusively on a complicated moral and ethical dilemma to one that also examines just how far a radical and powerful group of religious conservatives are willing to go to push their political beliefs on the public."

It's been Extreme Makeover time lately for the GOP, with Antonin Scalia acting chummy in hopes of landing the Chief Justice spot, Boss DeLay dismissing the recent allegations of incessant boondogglery, Karen Hughes coming out of mothballs to sell the Islamic world on Dubya, and the administration trying to sell the rest of us on pre-packaged news. I'm not buying any of it.

Journalism then and now: As Slate writer and Nixon historian David Greenberg reports in from the opening of the Watergate papers, Salon's Eric Boehlert surveys the strange case of "Jeff Gannon", a.k.a. James Guckert, fake newsman for Dubya.

The trifecta...The Dubya administration coughs up a third conservative commentator on the federal payroll -- Michael McManus of Marriage Savers. How many more before we can call it an all-out flunky epidemic?

Monica who? On the eve of Dubya II, Salon's Peter Dizikes offers a short but comprehensive list of this administration's scandals thus far. Thirty-four and counting...not that you'd know it from watching the evening news.

By way of a friend of mine, the Dubya education department gets busted subsidizing conservative commentator Armstrong Williams for good press on NCLB. I mean, really, wasn't Fox News enough?

Hope is on the...wait, what's this? Oops, sorry about that. Turns out Hope took a wrong turn and got lost somewhere back there in Idiotville. Welcome to Despairtown, baby.

So, that's that, then...the Idiot Wind blows anew. The American electorate has spoken and -- despite all the shadiness and incompetence of the past four years -- has given Dubya and his cronies the imprimatur to go hog-wild. 51-48%...this is pretty much a mandate, folks. (Big of those Red Staters to ensure that we will be woefully unprepared for the next terrorist attack on a Blue State.) Y'know, H.L. Mencken's whole Tyranny of the Booboisie schtick has always grated on my lefty sensibilities, but at this point I have to admit he may have been on to something.

Ugh. I'm too young to remember 1984 very well, but I'm curious as to how last night and this morning compared for America's Left. (I've since been reminded by several people I trust that 1968 and 1972 were much more grievous blows.) Thing is, 2004 started out with such promise over here. But, right around the time I ended up on crutches in May, events personal and political took a nasty turn, and the past few months have been some of the most dismal I can remember. Now, it seems, I may just look back on this time as relatively calm and worry-free.

But, ok, enough wallowing...let's start taking it frame-by-frame. Given the war, the economy, and Dubya's obvious incompetence, how on Earth did we lose this election? Well, give credit where credit is due...all this exit-talk of "moral values" proves that Karl Rove pulled off his gambit: He got the extra 4 million evangelical votes he was targeting, partly, it seems, by judiciously invoking rampant anti-gay hysteria. Yet, for some reason or another -- a lousy ground game, perhaps? -- the Dems inexplicably didn't counter with extra votes of our own.

Where do we go from here? The Dems are facing an ugly Rule of Four...We lost four seats in the Senate, at least four seats in the House, and likely four seats in the Supreme Court. Whatsmore, we now appear officially dead in the water in the South and Midwest. And, with Kerry and Daschle gone, our standard-bearers now appear to be Hillary Clinton (about whom the country has already made up its mind), John Edwards (whom I still admire, but he couldn't carry his home state), and Barrack Obama (who's probably too inexperienced to make much headway in 2008.)

Obviously, it's now well past time for the serious party overhaul we should've began last cycle, when Al Gore had an election stolen from him that he should have won hands down. Daschle & Gephardt are already in the dustbin of history, and Terry McAuliffe should probably follow them there. I for one don't think Howard Dean was or is the answer, but he's one of the only people injecting new blood and enthusiasm into the party right now, so he should have a seat at the table. Right now, I think Edwardsian populism is our strongest ideological card, but as I said, it didn't seem to make much headway last night.

Silver lining? Yeah, right. Well, as this Washington Monthly forum noted in September, second terms are notoriously scandal-prone (Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica), partly out of press boredom, and Dubya's ilk seem particularly scandal-worthy...perhaps we'll finally hear a little more about Halliburton. I'm sure there'll be no shortage of horrifying policy decisions emanating from this administration that'll keep lefty blogs like this one in business. And, on a purely selfish note, my likely dissertation topic on the fortunes of progressivism in the twenties is now seeming much more sexy in the wake of last night's 1928-like cultural divide. Of course, none of these are really any consolation at all.

At any rate, I generally believe that America tends to get the president it deserves. So, God help us, we've brought this upon ourselves. And now, for we 48%, the hard work begins...we have to lick our wounds, get our act together, and figure out how we can best combat the rightward drift that's afflicting our nation. Alas, I fear Dubya will do much of the heavy lifting for us, by running the nation further into the ground over the next four years. Still, we gotta keep on keeping on, y'all. I do not believe this darkness will endure.

The Sinclair Broadcast Group fires their Washington bureau chief, Jon Leiberman, after he makes his displeasure about their right-wing proselytizing known to the Baltimore Sun. Whatsmore, the wingnut network is playing hardball: "Sinclair would not waive his noncompete agreement, which means he cannot work for a broadcast outlet in any market that has a Sinclair station." Hmmm...well, two (and more) can play at that game. Update: Sinclair buckles.

"CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think. STEWART: You need to go to one." Sent to me by a friend in the program here, Jon Stewart and Tucker Carlson battle it out on Crossfire. (More here.) I wish I'd seen this live...the transcript is definitely worth a read. "CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery? STEWART: Absolutely...You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls." Update: See it here, via High Industrial.

So apparently the Sinclair Broadcast Group, a right-wing-flunky television conglomerate who previously refused to air a Nightline on fallen soldiers in Iraq, will show an anti-Kerry hatchet-job on its swing state affiliates in the next two weeks. Well, I must say, that's quite an end-run around the equal time rule, if not a blatant misuse of the public airwaves. Perhaps the FCC can extricate themselves from their shock over Janet Jackson's breast long enough to look into this.

With CBS giving up on the Killian memos, both the NY Times and Salon try to refocus the story on the facts of Dubya's disappearance. Still an excellent question...

"This is a fight about freedom--the freedom of independent entrepreneurs to start and run a media business, and the freedom of citizens to get news, information, and entertainment from a wide variety of sources, at least some of which are truly independent and not run by people facing the pressure of quarterly earnings reports. No one should underestimate the danger." Fed up to the gills, Ted Turner takes on Big Media in the Washington Monthly.

By way of Value Judgment, Alexandra Polier -- the woman whom Drudge et al earlier claimed had an affair with John Kerry -- digs into the unsavory origins of her own non-story. The first half of the article is basically a recap of her situation and her actual connection to Kerry, but the second half -- when she begins interrogating the journalists who breathlessly created this media scandal out of whole cloth -- is quite interesting.

Facing increasing criticism for his closed-door colloquys, Justice Scalia backs down to some extent on Speechgate...he now says he'll allow print reporters to transcribe his remarks, but not radio or television journalists. What, may I ask, is our esteemed Justice afraid of? Surely he can find a way to express himself more moderately for televised public consumption. He'll just have to give up the Cheney hunting stories.

Surprise, surprise. FOX News leads the nation in misinformed viewers. (Via Lots of Co..) Who would've guessed?

Looks like it's a bad day for imperious Dubya appointees. In the wake of Congress's recent decision to limit the powers of the Patriot Act, a defiant Ashcroft wants his toys back. Also facing considerable bipartisan and public criticism, Michael Powell appoints a task force on media consolidation. As Copps notes in the article, next time perhaps it'd be better to do the fact-finding before you vote.

Why is there no liberal media? Frank Rich examines the situation.

Clear Channel is sued by Roxanne Cordonier, a South Carolina DJ and the 2002 state Radio Personality of the Year, for firing her for her anti-war stance. The suit also alleges that Cordonier "was forced to participate in a pro-war rally." I'll have to keep an eye on this one.

Fox News goes for the jugular after CNN discloses it paid for their now-ubiquitous Al Qaeda tapes. All I know is I much preferred CNN back when they were the Clinton News Network and not the Child Nabbed Network. They've been going steadily downhill ever since Isaacson took over. (Not that I'll be watching Fox News or anything.)

Michael Kinsley discusses Stephanopoulos's new gig, and makes the case for FOX News in the process.