ABC, Idol, and Our "Idiocracy" Quotient
By Brian Lambert
To some extent, everyone in "the media game" is a trend watcher. It isn't just the fashion writers tracking skirt lengths who are trying to predict where the audience is going next. Hard-news reporters, the few who are left, learn to hone a nose for what is called a "promotable story," something their bosses will jump on and play big—front page or top of the news.
The "elitist" word here is "meme" (Merriam-Webster: "an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture"). Generally speaking, we try to stay hip to the latest meme for solid commercial reasons. I.e. Detecting the meme early and reading it right means being where the money is.
Based on a convergence of events and responses, highlighted by Obama's "bitter" controversy and the blistering ridicule ABC has taken for its moderation of the Clinton-Obama debate last Wednesday, I'm going out on a limb here and identifying a rapidly evolving meme in which serious attention is (finally) being paid to this country's stunning cultural separation between those with an avid interest in acquiring valid information and those indifferent to reality, or maybe I should say, "realism."
I admit I was stunned by the reaction to George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson's debate performance. Having flogged traditional media's affinity for lame "gotcha" questions for years, I've got a mild case of whiplash from the explosively negative blowback from ABC's out-of-touch pandering. Don't get me wrong. The reaction was encouraging as all hell. But it was the size of the eruption that startled me. Why now?
My instant analysis is that:
A. Obama's "bitter" comments re-ignited the usual political/cultural divide. The "elitists" seemed to know exactly what he was talking about and appreciated him saying it while the "others"—including Hillary Clinton—leaped on it with their usual dismaying predictability. (Most of the population, of course, had no idea what was going on. They were looking forward to the big two-hour episode of Deal or No Deal).
Then B. In George and Charlie's retrograde questioning, with all that flag pin, '60s radicals, and Rev. Wright stuff, the Obama-minded—which is clearly a lot of very catalyzed people, not just the usual wispy-bearded lefties—saw the "others," or big media's pandering to the mentality of the "others," in stark relief and are screaming "enough!"
So, C. I'm suggesting we are seeing an evolving meme in which the "elites" are seeing enough mass around them to fight back against the agents of stupidity (ABC's inoperative cultural antenna, FoxNews, which, as you might notice, has been successfully marginalized through the primary season) and are pointing out the existence of the huge, widening, and largely unexamined cultural gulf between the "elites"/themselves and the incurious and easily distracted.
A recent column by Los Angeles Times writer Meghan Daum, titled "Still With Stupid?", begins with her recalling an '80s-era Woody Allen-style New York intellectual complaining about cheap attacks on anyone who engaged in critical thinking.
"I never thought I'd say this, but I'm beginning to think she might have had a point. As dumb as things were back then, it's fair to suggest today's culture is even dumber. Granted, the police aren't raiding highbrow cultural events and arresting anyone who uses a three-syllable word, but something uncannily similar is playing out, minute by minute, on television and the Internet. With political discourse reduced to screaming contests and actual news eclipsed by exclusive and shocking footage of celebrities without makeup, we've become not only impatient with but downright opposed to the kinds of ideas that can't be reduced to a line on a screen crawl or a two-sentence blog entry.
"What's more, a lot of people who harbor an intolerance for complexity see it not as a character flaw but a cognitive virtue. That's because they've fallen into the trap of believing that complicated ideas ("complicated" now constituting anything that requires reading, watching or listening to in its entirety) are the purview of the "elite."
Obviously, this perspective on our "idiot culture" wasn't born yesterday. But until recently, it has been exceedingly rare from the mainstream media organs. Why? Because it was bad for business. Large commercial news organizations live in constant fear of being labeled "elitist," which, of course, they are as a consequence of reading books and having respect for factual accuracy, while remaining desperate to milk every remaining dollar they can out of their lapel-pin-wearing/"does-Rev.-Wright-love-America-as-much -as-you?"/don't-care-'bout-nothing-but-American Idol consumer base.
Back in March, Charlotte Allen wrote a piece for The Washington Post titled, "We Scream. We Swoon. How Dumb Can We Get?", a shot at women's cultural proclivities that would have gotten any male writer peeled alive in a public square. It was, however, brave, provocative, and highly relevant.
She wrote: "I'm not the only woman who's dumbfounded (as it were) by our sex, or rather, as we prefer to put it, by other members of our sex besides us. It's a frequent topic of lunch, phone and water-cooler conversations; even some feminists can't believe that there's this thing called "The Oprah Winfrey Show" or that Celine Dion actually sells CDs. A female friend of mine plans to write a horror novel titled "Office of Women," in which nothing ever gets done and everyone spends the day talking about Botox."
(For the flip-side picture of male inanity, dial into sports talk radio for any eight hours of NFL draft talk.)
This morning, The New York Times's Bob Herbert bemoans our drift into semi-literacy with a column titled, "Clueless in America".
To date, the vast majority of the emboldened "elite" have appeared on the Internet, where it actually works to your advantage not to pander to the widest and lowest demographic. (OK, porn and Perez Hilton. You got me.) And therein lies the connection to that other evolving meme, the sinking credibility and viability of the traditional news organizations. ABC's debate fiasco—I think that's a fair description—was stunning because the reaction so clearly identified how badly out of step ABC was with a very large and substantive cultural tide.
Big "elite" media operations, such as broadcast television and daily newspapers, must provide content across both sides of the "Idiocracy" divide. But this new meme suggests it isn't going to be possible much longer to mix the two. We're talking oil and water. Those who know and those who don't care what they don't know. Or . . . those who are awake in class and taking notes and Jay Leno's "Jay Walkers". We're moving toward a point where traditional media is going to have to decide who they want/need most.
Bonus link: Elitist documentary filmmaker Robert Greenwald offers a collection of "bloopers" delineating exactly the problem. The cream here is George Stephanopoulos on Sean Hannity's radio show. Check in at about 2:50 for Hannity feeding George—almost verbatim—the Williams Ayers question he asked Obama in the debate.
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
Ditto, man.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on April 22, 2008 at 11:42 AM
I dont know why the Ayers or Wright questions are supposed to be out of bounds. Theyre reflective of something, arent they? And the best person to explain that is Obama.
He explained Ayers reasonably well. Wright, not so much.
It wasn't Hannity who was on to these early, it was Christopher Hitchens. He seems to think its important.
LAMBERT: I think the zeitgeist here is that the Rev. Wright stuff had been covered ad nauseum, the Ayers connection was an absurd reach -- (the comments "on 9/11" Hannity mentioned were from an interview conducted PRIOR to 9/11 and not in the context of that event, but of course it played better to obscure that fact) -- and the public at large -- certainly this growing and active-minded crowd I'm interested in wanted to talk about matters a bit more relevant than this wholly subjective, over-spun "character" junk.
Posted by: 108 on April 22, 2008 at 12:29 PM
I like the Bob Herbert piece but wish he went a little further into how we fix it. Granted that is a very tall order.
I'm a big culture person and relate our troubles to what has happened to the core family, impact of technology gone wrong, and a misguided education system.
We've turned into a country of sound bites and RSS feeds. If the story doesn't look interesting at a glance, people don't read it. The US has gone USA today and intellectual debate has checked out.
Kids are now allowed to have cell phones everywhere and parents give them to them. Text messaging rules as a communication mechanism over actual English. Take away a calculator, and most kids can't do basic math.
The most troubling part is how we have shifted to taking sides. I didn't agree with all of the questions in the ABC debate, but I thought the media and far left reaction was ridiculous. Obama and Clinton had a zillion debates. So a few stupid questions were tossed out there. We once again have avoided discussing the actual issues and locked into an argument on whether the candidates were treated "fairly". And yes, the same treatment would be fair for McCain.
This is exactly why I read this blog. I want to hear all sides of issues before making my decisions. Sadly, most Republican types won't read Brian's writings -- they think they have it all figured out.
LAMBERT: I appreciate your readership, Dave. But I think the point of the reaction to the ABC debate wasn't that the candidates were treated unfairly, but rather the viewing public was treated unfairly. ABC pandered to exactly the mentality you are decrying. Despite their aloof response to the criticism, I'm guessing George and Charlie got the message loud and clear that a new standard is being applied to these things.
Posted by: Dave on April 22, 2008 at 12:44 PM
The idea that the American public is generally uninterested in serious thought is hardly new. I think you and Bob Herbert might consider that Mr. Mencken had much the same take on what he called the American "booboisie" more than 80 years ago. Strictly speaking, you can't have an small, intellectually "elite" segment of the population unless everybody else is sort of stupid. Without lowbrow there's no highbrow.
So it's not surprising that Hillary Clinton is still "in" the race, even though she has little prospect of winning it. Her support is among the non-elites, people who vaguely the recall the 1990s as a better time and presume she is the conduit to that sunnier past. They're as untroubled by differentials between the realities of then and now as they are by Mrs. Clinton's inability to recall whether she ever did or did not come under sniper fire while escorting her daughter and the comedian Sinbad across the tarmac in Bosnia.
As for the justly maligned ABC debate...the problem was the unbalanced attack on Mr. Obama, not the relevance of the questions. It would have been instructive, for example, for Mrs. Clinton to have been asked if she knows the difference between a "misstatement" and a lie. In any case, we already know what the candidates have to say about the "issues," and that there isn't much difference between them. No need to rehash Iraq, health care, education, or the mortgage crisis. The problem for the electorate now is character, and the fact that Obama is winning suggests that this has been resolved in his favor.
LAMBERT: Methinks someone is having their rhetorical cake and eating it, too. I'm not arguing that this is the first era that has had smart kids and dunderheads, or even the first time the so-called "mainstream media" has pandered to the latter. I'm saying that the gulf between the informed and the ill-informed is deeper than ever (perhaps due to the exponential increase in information available to the avid information consumers, more than rampant inanity) and that thanks to various tools a their disposal -- the internet, the ability to clearly register the mass of people opposed to mixing inanity with relevance -- the previously maligned "elites" are biting back.
And while Obama's supporters were clearly leading the attack on ABC, I don't think any of them would have objected to an entire debate testing his knowledge of the specifics of Mideast security umbrellas, capital gains taxation, etc. The Rev. Wright thing is stale and the William Ayers thing, as I've said, a ludicrous stretch.
Unfortunately that "character" thing, where, based on a single "gotcha" moment a nation of amateur psychologists decides one candidate is a "straight shooter" and the other a pompous blowhard hasn't served us very well.
I still say the best debate format(s) would be a series moderated by an acknowledged expert, one after another, finance, health care, foreign affairs, education -- with the well-versed narrator encouraged to assert, "I'm sorry, sir/mam. That is simply not true."
Have you been punk'd with a Hillary lawn sign yet?
Posted by: Frogman of Grant on April 22, 2008 at 1:52 PM
"...this wholly subjective, over-spun "character" junk."
Uh, Lambo, the guy thinks he should be PRESIDENT.
(What's truly frightening is that there are other people who think he should be!)
The people he has chosen to associate with is RELEVENT.
He is simply an empty suit with a severe identity complex.
LAMBERT: Well, you're our empty suit expert ...
Posted by: bertram jr on April 22, 2008 at 2:50 PM
A Hillary lawn sign? Are you suggesting those people can write?
LAMBERT: Only by inference.
Posted by: Frogman of Grant on April 22, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Well-considered points, but I think you overlook one of the most salient features of this election cycle, which is the enormous interest and participation all across the country. Which of us who regularly contribute to this blog ever expected to see such an increase during our lifetime? It's not only those with season tickets to the Guthrie and the SPCO, but also those whose preference runs to the WWF and Survivor. I agree that there may be a cultural gulf, possibly ever-widening, but it's hard to conclude that the democracy is in dire straits when people from all strata are attending candidate events as well as voting in unprecedented numbers.
LAMBERT: What I'm saying is that the traditional media types are "misunderestimating" what you're describing. I think it's tremendously encouraging that so many people slapped ABC's face. They care. In a normal election cycle, with routine candidates, they wouldn't.
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on April 22, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Well now, Frogman, I'd say that Mr. Mencken's greatest misgiving about national politics has already been realized, to wit: "The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
"The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." (Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920)
But what I'd add, though, is that we continue to inherit the bitter wind set to blowin' back in 1925 when Mencken went to Dayton, Tennesee to report on an event he himself was instrumental in contriving by recruiting Clarence Darrow to serve as counsel for the dense--the Scopes Monkey Trial. I think a lot of what we've been witness to, what Lambert has well outlined, can be fairly laid to a great extent at the Baltimore Sage's own now turned up feet.
Mencken's acerbic and excoriating dispatches from Dayton, and after his premature departure before Darrow even got around to calling William Jennings Bryan himself to the stand, from the comfort of his desk in Baltimore, served only to retrench the sentiments of what he called "yokels," "primates," morons," and "hillbillies" of Dayton, TN.
He went there to report in a manner that would further calcify his preexisting prejudices. Observing the circus trial of a volunteer defendant through his darkly elitist (in thw worst sense of the term) lens, according to historian Kevin Tierney, "Mencken and Darrow really wanted in some sense to re-fight the Civil War. They were Northerners come down to tell the Southern yokels just how stupid they were."
Well, in this battle between fundamentalism and cosmopolitan worldliness, Mencken was so sure of his victory that he didn't even stay in town long enough to see Darrow's defeat in this show trial set up to bring a little tourism born of notoriety to Dayton and some well-deserved (in Mencken's mind) derision to the know-nothings of the South.
I'd argue that in so doing to meet his own emotional needs, Mencken's reports that rained down shame and humiliation on, not just the people of Dayton, TN, but the struggling working poor and lower classes of the entire U.S. culture in publications nationwide, people who needed a champion not a preening scold the likes of Mencken, he planted the seeds for the very backlash of the "booboisie" that's been so effectively exploited over the last quarter of a century in this country.
I feel a certain amount of shame myself for so often succumbing to the very cynicism that colored Mencken's worldview.
It's my hope that Barack Obama's resonance out there in the electorate is born of the trust he engenders in people that he is posessed of enough to empathy that he won't shame these people, that he won't rub their noses in their financial and intellectual dispossession; but, rather, will do what he can to help them by first acknowledging their fundamental humanity, the inequities that have brought them to where they find themselves, and then outlining what he'd like to see done to help them to aspire to realizing their hopes rather than bracing against their greatest fears.
It's my guess that the obsession with the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership has less to do with hunting or irrational fear of urban crime, or, even more far-fetched, the notion of an armed insurrection against a corrupt federal government, than it does with the collective memory of gun-toting strike breaker company detectives the likes of the Pinkertons and their like. A powerless man can assuage to some extent the looming threat of the inexorable indsutrial powers arrayed against him with the possession of a gun (rent Harlan County, USA).
I think that the edge enjoyed by Sen. Obama that looms larger than any dutifully logged years of experience by Sens. Clinton and McCain is the promise of true champion for the dispossessed. Obama's not pandering to their fears. The danger is that with his poor choice of words on occasion, he may blow on the deeply-banked embers of resentment and distrust set abalze by the compassionless judgments of the likes of Mencken back in the roaring 20s.
LAMBERT: Nicely said, Jimmy. I continue to argue that Obama will be delighted to have a discussion with Hillary or McCain about "elitism" and who actually has empathy for the "bitter" folks of this country. But he needs to emphasize exactly what you are talking about. And I have no doubt that he is smart and adroit enough to do that.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on April 22, 2008 at 5:32 PM
Well, Brian, Hillary just won Pennsylvania by at least 9 points. That is 7 of the 8 big states.
Please deliver up Senator Obama as your candidate! Without your help, our Republican chances are dim.
Hillary may have negatives, but they are known negatives and for known reasons many of which people don't vote on.
Senator Obama didn't seeem really that able in answering the questions posed to him. He didn't like them. His supporters didn't like them. Imagine what it is going to be like when there are real policy differences and real information about his past associations. Please, nominate this man.
LAMBERT: I'm quite certain the Dems will nominate Obama. But beware what you wish for. I admit I'm a little surprised at the margin of victory, but running against Hillary & Bill -- who, for all the venom they attract from fellow middle of the roaders and lefties have no intention of producing a third Bush term -- is a much different thing
than running against McCain, who really only has "the character/experience" angle to work on, and the "experience" asset is badly diluted by his wholehearted support of everything 80% of the country regards as unmitigated disaster.
Posted by: Bleuler on April 22, 2008 at 9:33 PM
"I admit I was stunned by the reaction to George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson's debate performance."
Me, I blame it on the illegal immigrants.
Honestly, I'd tell you, but then I'd be giving youyou mymy meme...go find it on your own, I got mine.
Okay, I think I got all the smart-aleck responses out of my system, now to get serious--Why all the uproar? Why all the boost in the primary season voting? Why all the MSM miscalculations?
Because that is what they were paid to say. You were surprised the people reacted...I was surprised they hadn't reacted earlier.
All of those things came from the gutter the USA fell into in 2004. The Bush Admin took the USA down to levels most americans never dreamed possible.
That is when enough people realized what they thought needed to be done (elect Kerry and all would be good again) wasn't enough, and they stopped looking for someone else to solve their problems and set about changing things.
Look at all the changes that have occurred already--Move-on, HuffPost, DailyKos, Stewart-Colbert, and all those serious bloggers that used to have a readership of 100 suddenly grew to have 1,000,000--a day! That is where the energy for the 2006 election results came from, another night where all the analysts and pundits dined on crow and missed predictions.
And still not enough changed politically out of '06, so these same people dug in deeper, especially when they had a leader talking their language (Obama, for the politically challenged among us), who promises to lead us in political change, who talks about finally getting rid of the special interest politics that flourished under Bush-Clinton-Bush.
And that brings us to a simple debate in PA, where ABC tried the old politics of gotcha, only a week earlier they missed the lesson of 'bittergate' where Hillary was booed for trying the old politics of mischaracterization...Fox and MSM will continue to play the game, because that is what they are paid to do by the Murdochs of the world.
But Brian...we live in a different world now than 2000, don't we? Even Bob Collins is a blogger now. We can turn off the TV/radio/newspaper and still get news, can't we. And we have learned to form our own opinions without listening to Rushco or the echo machine of Kristen-Powerline.
There will always be some who need to be told what to believe, but the USA hit bottom in 2004 and while we have a long way back up, it has been 4 years of detox for alot of hard working people that have brought us to this point.
We realized that we will not change MSM, instead we changed us as viewers and MSM will either adjust or disappear when their ad revenue finds better options...just ask your old Strib/PiPress buddies how that works.
LAMBERT: I agree that the activist base is more catalyzed now than anytime I can remember. But I'm fascinated by the underlying cultural factors in this "elitism" business, because therein lies the key to every election. Whoever wins does so either by exploiting fear or mitigating it somehow, and there isn't much question which is easier to do, is there?
Posted by: The Other Mike on April 22, 2008 at 9:48 PM
I'm not with you on this one Brian. I do not think the Wright issue is stale by a long shot. In a general election, Wright could be the end of Obama unless Obama separates from him. The early exit polls in PA show Obama losing big amongst Catholics, not a good thing if he ends up against McCain.
Tom Shales went after the ABC duo challenging the questions they were asking. Many other in the media did the same thing. The suggestion is the topics were not worthy of a presidential debate. Shales was upset that his pal Obama was pushed on some issues that he (Shale) didn't think were important. (And since when was Shales a political commentator?)
I'll stand by my original point. We ended up in a pissing match about how fair the ABC debate was and how it was handled. We haven't talked about what the candidates actually said at all.
I just got done watching Obama give what looked like a victory speech after losing pretty convincingly tonight. I still have no idea how he is going to solve anything. He continues to trump "change" and poke at Bush. Bush is a fair target, but Obama needs to put substance behind the preaching.
LAMBERT: The thing is Dave that at this point in any campaign, "substance" is a pretty elusive commodity? Who out there right now is peddling "substance". McCain doesn't even seem to understand introductory economics? As I've said before I think both Clinton and Obama have made substantive proposals on health care, (hers is better ).
But let me just comment on your comment about Tom Shales the Post's "TV Critic". As someone who was in constant trouble for wandering off, away from giddy updates on "American Idol", to drone on about what passes for "news" on television, I get my feathetrs riffled every time suggests that you have to have some kind of badge or plumed hat to be a "political commentator".
We all live here and this stuff -- unlike who wins, "The Bachelor: London Calling" (daily newspapers' definition of appropriate TV critic subject matter) -- is relevant to all of us. Or, to put it another way, what makes a bunch of lawyers -- Power Line -- think they have any special claim on political commentary? Or Jason Lewis?
You throw it out there and hope for a reasonable, maybe even productive dialogue. If you get it, you're valid.
Posted by: Dave on April 22, 2008 at 10:29 PM
//But this new meme suggests it isn't going to be possible much longer to mix the two. We're talking oil and water.
Well said! The gulf between reality-based people and faith based people has become unbridgeable! I made this point once on a panel with Scott Johnson - the two sides cannot even *come close* to agreeing on basic facts.
LAMBERT: You and I may agree that that is because one side has respect for reality while the other respects only winning. Johnson (Power Line) would disagree.
Posted by: Rob Levine on April 23, 2008 at 7:36 AM
BL, I really want you to know how much I appreciate this column. As person in a very technical field (biotechnology, stem cell research and the sort)--I do get to meet and see a lot of smart people. But then I step off that bus and land in my other world. A world where you can't ask the tough questions(or hear the tough answers), a world where it is wrong to bitch about the environment or it is "unpatriotic" to comment about the fact that soldiers are committing suicide at a rate of 100+ a week. I miss the smart people. Thanks for writing a blog for smart people.
LAMBERT: Thanks. But I spend most of my day feeling pretty stupid.
Posted by: Biotech Nerd Girl on April 23, 2008 at 8:47 AM
I do not appreciate veiled personal insults.
You have failed to address valid questions regarding Obama's qualifications, and Maher's outrageous attack on the Pope and the Catholic church on HBO.
What's the matter with you?
LAMBERT: Gosh, I'm sorry. Should I take the veil off my insults?
Posted by: bertram jr on April 23, 2008 at 9:06 AM
Jim thats a super cogent analysis of the 'obsession' with 2A. Has nothing to do with clinging, and nothing to do with hunting.
LAMBERT: The sweet smell of detente.
Posted by: 108 on April 23, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Bertram Jr, seems to me the onus is first on you to make the case against whatever it was Bill Maher said about the Pope and the RC Church. If it was an indictment of the way they handled the widespread molestation of innocent children by members of their pastoral clerics, I'd be interested to read your defense.
LAMBERT: Bertram demands, others respond.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on April 23, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Here are my thoughts on your questions above--
--"I agree that the activist base is more catalyzed now than anytime I can remember. But I'm fascinated by the underlying cultural factors in this "elitism" business, because therein lies the key to every election. Whoever wins does so either by exploiting fear or mitigating it somehow, and there isn't much question which is easier to do, is there?"
This has gone beyond the activist base being catalzed, that was so 2005-6...since the '06 elections, the GOP changed tactics to try to profit off the changes they already had (maybe that explains the economy tanking). I would argue they are conceding the GOP party will lose heavily in '08 (really, were those candidates the best they have? Good grief, I would hope not).
To preserve their special interests, the money they are spending is being tossed into the Democratic party, since that will be the party who controls the political scene for the next eight years at least. Their base is fractured and if anyone is afraid, it looks like they are.
Now, more directly to your questions--
--Elitism and fear (and sexism and racism and let's throw age discrimination in too--this is a real freak show election isn't it) all play parts in this election cycle, the media, polling, and our whole society today.
But, are you afraid of any of it? Neither am I, and that is my point. Are you an activist? Neither am I, and that is my point too. For the first time since the early 70's, the american people seem to be aware of their role in setting policy in our society. People like you and me, who never thought we would give a care about politics, are now up to our elbows in it.
And I'm not afraid to have an elite president, in fact, I'm damned happy to have a president with a brain who is not afraid to talk to the people about his thoughts on matters.
And I'm not afraid of anything now, because of eight years of Dubya, I now have the greatest respect for our founding fathers and no respect for fearmongers.
And we want change, hell, I'll even say we expect change...and one more uproar after a debate and I will even say we are demanding change.
Does that help explain what happened in PA? Because we are like ants, the ones like you and me that the ruling party see, only means there are a hundred more like us in the woodwork.
LAMBERT: It appears as though Hillary scored well with women, particularly middle-age to older women, across Pennsylvania, and I think that is understandable. Any woman who has been alive for the ride from "Father Knows Best" to Hillary feels a kind of obligation to support a woman who has been kicked as often as Hillary has and still come as far. Once she's run her best race, I don't see them automatically flowing to a guy who looks like their father.
Posted by: The Other Mike on April 23, 2008 at 11:33 AM
//LAMBERT: You and I may agree that that is because one side has respect for reality while the other respects only winning. Johnson (Power Line) would disagree.
True - but - so what? The underlying fact is that the Right has built an information system for its adherents with an almost impermeable barrier. Further, it "mainlines" its craziness with outlets like Fox, MSNBC, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times.
LAMBERT: Well, I agree the "mainline" press courts the craziness of the "non-reality based" right at its peril. It may buy them a temporary break with the Power Lines of the world, but it is undercutting their credibility. I wonder what Stephanopoulos thinks about Hannity suckering him into that William Ayers question?
Posted by: Rob Levine on April 24, 2008 at 6:58 AM
I am not too sure the veiled personal insults are there for you to enjoy bertram, jr. but we sure get a kick out of them.
It is difficult to characterize and label your comments because they are already parodies of themselves. It can be hard to follow on comments that reveal themselves to be so comic and vacant.
When it comes to Obama and "experience" I am almost immediately reminded of Abraham Lincoln who might well be one of the best Presidents America has ever known and also John F. Kennedy who had little legislative and inside Washington political experience. Both of these men were hugely transformative figures in the history of the U.S. and they ran against entrenched political insiders who clung to their political guns with tenacious old world grit.
I just don't see the appeal of clinging to Washington insiders and more of the Clinton and Bush dynasties. We've had Clinton / Bush for the last 20 years of this nations history. Do we want 8 more or 20 more years? Does America need more bad political behavior and lies disguising itself as "experience"?
LAMBERT: "Comic and vacant". That may be too veiled.
Posted by: Robb on April 24, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Oh, and you might want to add FDR to that list of "inexperienced" outsiders who became pivotal to the history of the country by becoming President. There is no evidence that lifetime politicians and Washington insiders make better Presidents than outsiders with a vision for change.
LAMBERT: I think Obama is prepared to remind voters that is was "adults" with 30 years worth of "experience" in government, foreign affairs and finance that produced this colossal ****-up.
Posted by: Robb on April 24, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Robb, besides being a fool, why do you hate America?
LAMBERT: Is this your idea of a "veiled" insult?
Posted by: bertram jr on April 25, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Oh and Leinfelder, are you sute yoiu didn't pull something as you feign ignorance over Stewart's anti-Catholic statements on HBO?
Funny how you AND your doppelganger in Raybans are able to blithely pull the blanket over such virulent hate-speech.
Imagine you also see nothing wrong with the racism and hate-speech of the "Reverend" Wright.
LAMBERT: How would you judge your level of confusion at this moment?
Posted by: bertram jr on April 25, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Pointing out successful Presidents, both Republican and Democrats, who had successful times in office without prior "experience" = hating America. I'm an educated man, but I can't quite understand that logic. I'm going to chalk it up as an example of the "Idiocracy" Quotient. In this case, it's just repeating a simple Sean Hannity insult/scare tactic. At least come up with your own material, Bertram. Even Kenny Banya took the Ovaltine bit and made it his own.
Stick to Rev. Wright, flag pins, and the like Bertrude. You're an empty suit when it comes to any of the other issues, you know those little details that nobody cares about like the war, the economy, education, health care, and the like.
LAMBERT: Bertram will soon tell you that HE is the only independent thinker. How does he know this? Laura Ingraham told him so.
Posted by: Danny B. on April 25, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Implying that Barry Hussein Obama has anything close to the neccessary qualifications to be President is what makes Robb a fool.
An America-hating fool.
LAMBERT: Again with the "veiled" thing.
Posted by: bertram jr on April 25, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Wow Bertram, sometimes you reach and other times you try to jump the span of the Mississippi.
Robb isn't implying that the Senator from Illinois has the "qualfications" that you claim he needs to be President. He's pointing out that the "qualifications" as you "define" them have been shown to be meaningless by Presidents like Lincoln, FDR, and Kennedy.
That's not hating America buddy. It's simply pointing out the "qualifications" as you "define" them aren't necessarily an indicator of future success. I guess if pointing out the weakness of your "arguments" (indictments would be a better word here maybe) constitutues hating America, we should rename this city Paris.
BTW: Senator Barack Hussein Obama has way more experience in national and international politics than G.W. Bush ever did. So I can assume you voted for Al Gore and John Kerry as they met the "qualifications" as you so clearly defend here? I'm sure that's the case.
Now, what is it that Common says about the 7 out of 10?
LAMBERT: By bertram's definitions -- which are very tightly defined for him, you're an America hater if you don't podcast Bill O'Reilly. It really is that simple.
Posted by: Danny B. on April 25, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Bjr: Sorry, but I don't have HBO or a subscription to The Catholic Bulletin. So I'm still waiting for you to outline the issue for me re: Maher and His Holiness.
Like I said what seems like forever ago, my guess would be he was comedically knocking the Holy See for looking the other way on the pederast epidemic in the pastoral ranks in the RC church. If so, you wanna' explain to me what's not to criticize?
As a fellow RC, how is it you're more worked up about whatever it is Maher said than the church's shameless after-the-fact complicity in these widespread felonies against innocent children?
Or, to use your rhetorical gambit: Why do you hate Jesus?
LAMBERT: Has he decided yet if it's Maher or Stewart who hates freedom?
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on April 25, 2008 at 6:27 PM
40-love Leinfelder.
(Just in case anyone wants to know the current score in this match. Lets see if Bertram can break his serve).
LAMBERT: Bertram is at a disadvantage what with Sean Hannity off the air until Monday.
Posted by: Jed Leyland on April 26, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Disingenuous, at best.
LAMBERT: I'll take that as high praise.
Posted by: bertram jr on April 28, 2008 at 10:15 AM
So, Jed, is that game, set, match? I've lost track.
Anyway, Bertram Jr, where are you registering your doubtless soaring dudgeon over Cardinal Ed Egan admonishing your man, Rudy G that he ought not to have taken The Eucharist for his support of a woman's right to choose?
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12479
That wasn't Bill Maher, old sport. Some might say the Cardinal let Mr. 911 off easy by not mentioning the serial marriages and public adultery.
We're all awaiting your encyclical.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on April 28, 2008 at 8:58 PM