SATURDAY, AUGUST 9,  2008

SAY WHAT?

Posted at 10:40 p.m. ET

From The New York Times:

The image of President Bush smiling and chatting with Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia from the stands of the Beijing Olympics even as Russian aircraft were shelling Georgia outlines the reality of America’s Russia policy. While America considers Georgia its strongest ally in the bloc of former Soviet countries, Washington needs Russia too much on big issues like Iran to risk it all to defend Georgia.

From The Australian:

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd witnessed a heated discussion between US President George W. Bush and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, over Russia's invasion of a tiny neighbouring country as athletes paraded before them in the Opening Ceremony on Friday night.

Mr Rudd revealed in an interview with Beijing Now in Beijing on Saturday that he was sitting just two rows behind Mr Bush when an "animated" discussion between he and Mr Putin broke out over Russia's advance into South Ossetia, a breakaway region in neighbouring Georgia.

Artistic differences.

August 9, 2008.

STOPPING THE PRESSES

Posted at 5:48 p.m. ET

We noted here this morning that the mainstream press has consistently fallen down - over the years - in reporting on John Edwards.  Had we gotten better reporting of his days as a high-flying ambulance-chasing lawyer, we might not have been surprised by his latest "I did not have sex with that woman...well, maybe I did" episode.

Now Tim Rutten, in the very mainstream Los Angeles Times, confirms the diagnosis:

When John Edwards admitted Friday that he lied about his affair with filmmaker Rielle Hunter, a former employee of his campaign, he may have ended his public life but he certainly ratified an end to the era in which traditional media set the agenda for national political journalism.

From the start, the Edwards scandal has belonged entirely to the alternative and new media. The tabloid National Enquirer has done all the significant reporting on it -- reporting that turns out to be largely correct -- and bloggers and online commentators have refused to let the story sputter into oblivion.

Slate's Mickey Kaus has been foremost among the latter, alternately analyzing and speculating on the Enquirer's reporting and ridiculing the mainstream media for a fastidiousness that has seemed, from the start, wholly absurd. Like other commentators, he repeatedly alleged that a double standard that favored Democrats applied to the story.

And...

The Enquirer went with the story, and when no major newspaper or broadcast outlet even reported the existence of the tabloid story, bloggers and online commentators redoubled their demands that the mainstream media explain their silence...

...As pressure mounted on major newspapers to take some aspect of the unfolding scandal into account, editors and ombudsmen issued statements saying it would be unfair to publish anything until the Enquirer's stories had been "confirmed."

And...

Some of this reticence may have reflected a regard for the feelings of Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, who has incurable cancer. There was, however, every reason to set that deference aside.

First, it was less than unlikely that Elizabeth Edwards was unaware of the allegations. (She says now she knew of the affair in 2006.) Second, Edwards' name has surfaced as a possible running mate for Barack Obama and as a possible attorney general or Supreme Court nominee -- posts in which character and candor matter. Finally, throughout his political career, Edwards has made his marriage a centerpiece of his campaigns.

I'm glad someone finally said that.  When you're a candidate for high office, elected or appointed. you must give up a great deal of privacy.  And you cannot expect that the sensitivity extended to a private citizen will be extended to you.  There is a public interest involved.

ABC News began investigating the Edwards affair in October, but really began to push after the Beverly Hilton allegations. When ABC confronted Edwards with its story (which confirmed "95% to 96%" of the tabloid's reporting, according to the network), he admitted his deception.

With that admission, the illusion that traditional print and broadcast news organizations can establish the limits of acceptable political journalism joined the passenger pigeon on the roster of extinct Americana.

R.I.P. 

August 9,  2008.      Permalink          

TRACKERS

Posted at 2:35 p.m. ET

Both trackers are out, and the results are odd.  The gap between the two is the largest that I can recall in a long time, and the spread is not good for Senator McCain.

Rasmussen has McCain up one.

But Gallup has Obama up five. 

This places the Gallup tracker in alignment with almost all recent polls, and makes Rasmussen the outlier. 

All polls, as noted here many times, are snapshots.  You have to look at polling trends over a period of time.  Also, Gallup surveys registered voters, Rasmussen likely voters.  Presumably, McCain has an advantage among likely voters as Obama's base, especially minorities and young people, traditionally have underperformed on election day.  However, a cautionary note:  A Time poll of likely voters, concluded five days ago, also had Obama up five.

The Democratic National Convention starts in 16 days.  I think it's critical for McCain to at least tie Obama going in, in order to minimize Obama's expected convention bounce.  It would clearly be better if McCain can campaign hard, and put Obama on the defensive at his own convention.  The key:  Will the mainstream media give McCain the coverage he deserves during this period, a time when the Olympics are being broadcast and Obama sunbathes in Hawaii?  Or will the great practitioners of news gathering "disappear" Mr. McCain?  Watch the tube and read the front pages carefully.

August 9, 2008.      Permalink           

SLICK JOHNNY

Posted at 8:05 a.m. ET

I never liked him. John Edwards was too smooth, too slick, too pretty, too ambitious, to win my trust.  He absolutely lost me during the recent primary campaign when he joined the attacks on Hillary Clinton, who'd had the gall to suggest that Martin Luther King Jr. did not win all the civil rights battles by himself.  Clinton had referred to the contributions of Lyndon Johnson, especially in the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1964.  Edwards, apparently thinking he was appealing to blacks who'd felt "disrespected" by Clinton's comments, disparaged Johnson as "some Washington politician."  It was the kind of comment, dishonest and groveling, that made you despise Edwards.

Then, of course, there was the fact that he was building the largest mansion in his county while arguing for energy responsibility.

So his admission that he's had an affair and lied repeatedly about it did not come as a total surprise.  It's what I'd expect of him.  Anyone shocked might ask why they're shocked.  They're shocked because, as in so many cases involving liberal candidates, the press never did its job.  John Edwards became powerful because he became wealthy, and he became wealthy because of his slickness before juries in personal-injury cases.  Edwards was the smoothest of the ambulance chasers. 

And yet, what reader of Urgent Agenda can name one of his cases, or describe his tactics?  I certainly can't.  Edwards used junk science in the courtroom.  He was one of those lawyers, especially in the period of the eighties, who convinced juries to find against doctors in malpractice cases, based on dubious medical "evidence." 

You didn't know?  Why didn't you know?  You didn't know because no one told you.  Here is a man who's been a U.S. senator, was John Kerry's vice presidential candidate, and who recently ran for president, and yet we know virtually nothing about him, just as we knew nothing about Barack Obama until a few brave journalists informed us of some of his bizarre associations.

This latest episode is a personal failure on Edwards's part.  But more important to the country is the press failure, the fact that anyone could be even slightly surprised by what Edwards has done.

August 9,  2008.      Permalink          

TWO CANDIDATES

Posted at 8: 49 a.m. ET

Placed side by side, two quotes give an example of the difference between the two presidential candidates.  The issue is the Soviet attack into Georgia:  Here is John McCain's statement:

“Today, news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally-recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory. What is most critical now is to avoid further confrontation between Russian and Georgian military forces. The consequences for Euro-Atlantic stability and security are grave.

“The government of Georgia has called for a cease-fire and for a resumption of direct talks on South Ossetia with international mediators. The U.S. should immediately convene an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to call on Russia to reverse course. The U.S. should immediately work with the EU and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course it has chosen. We should immediately call a meeting of the North Atlantic Council to assess Georgia’s security and review measures NATO can take to contribute to stabilizing this very dangerous situation. Finally, the international community needs to establish a truly independent and neutral peacekeeping force in South Ossetia.”

And here is Obama's:

“I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis.”

Gee, Barack, thanks for the detail.

As Abe Greenwald at Contentions put it:

Forget all the ads, the videos, the talking points, and the accusations. Here’s what it comes down to: In a geopolitical crisis, you have one candidate with a handle on the specific players and their intentions, and ideas on specific ways to move forward: then you have another candidate who says parties should try to help bring about "a peaceful resolution.” There’s your choice.

Indeed it is.  And the safety of this country may well depend on that choice.

August 9, 2008.      Permalink