Soul Searching = More Hippie Bashing
Posted: November 14, 2010 Filed under: Team Obama, The Media SUCKS | Tags: Ann Kornblut 10 Comments
Yes, I did the politically correct thing and bleeped out the D word.
Well, I read some analysis over at WAPO. I couldn’t just go enjoy a nice sunny Sunday like many other folks. The headline was just too full of potential one-liners for me to not follow the siren song. It’s–surprise!!! (not)–more gossip mongering as journalism by Ann Kornblut and the title is: ‘Soul-searching’ Obama aides: Democrats’ midterm election losses a wake-up call. Kornblut is well known for printing Republican slogans as real news. Both Glenn Greenwald and Bob Somerby have pretty much done all the criticism of Kornblut you could possibly read. We won’t even start on her major CDS upon which she seems to have built her career. I just couldn’t let this one go.
She’s back to her tricks with acting like she has insiders in the White House whose names never seem to get mentioned. She also deserves a time out for gratuitously using the word shellacking along with Frank Rich over at the NY T today. The rest is just bizarre. Perhaps she’s out to fill Sally Quinn’s shoes? Who are these so-called advisers any way? This thing is long and it adds nothing to any current conversation about the mid term elections. It’s a waste of ink and bytes.
The advisers are deeply concerned about winning back political independents, who supported Obama two years ago by an eight-point margin but backed Republicans for the House this year by 19 points. To do so, they think he must forge partnerships with Republicans on key issues and make noticeable progress on his oft-repeated campaign pledge to change the ways of Washington.
Even more important, senior administration officials said, Obama will need to oversee tangible improvements in the economy. They cannot just keep arguing, as Democrats did during the recent campaign, that things would have been worse if not for administration policies.
One adviser said they spent the past dozen days “soul-searching.”
Another said that, around the White House, “people aren’t just sitting around doing soul-searching. They’re gaming out the short, medium and long term.”
“People have given a lot of thought to this,” said that adviser, who like others interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to freely discuss internal deliberations.
What does this say to you besides, gee, Obama should just get it over and basically become a Republican? Again, who are these people without names but with active souls to be searched? Is this a precursor to more hippie bashing and handing Republicans victory before they even do anything at all?
So, here it is again … the first compromise. Just let the rich have those damned tax cuts already!!!
Over the next few days, White House officials said they will begin to gauge whether they can forge an alliance with any top Republicans, many of whom are scheduled to attend a bipartisan meeting at the White House on Thursday. Although Obama could benefit from a high-profile compromise – perhaps on extending the Bush-era tax cuts or on other tax initiatives set to expire before the end of the year – officials are also prepared to point out any Republican intransigence.
Again, who are THEY? I’ve seen more concrete information in the National Enquirer. What editor let’s this crap get published? Then Kornblut goes right on with a series of quotes from named Republicans that basically says they could give a hoot about working with Obama. They’re more interested in making him a one term president.
So, what’s next? ASK an unnamed Democratic political source.
“There isn’t going to be a reset button. That’s not their style,” said a Democratic strategist who works with the White House on several issues. “They don’t like pivots, and they also believe they’re right.”
And then end with an unnamed senior official.
On the other hand, “underreading it would be to think that we did all the right things and didn’t say them the right way, and if people had just listened they would have gotten it,” one senior administration official said. “That’s not what we think. That’s not what the president thinks.”
Why doesn’t the Washington Post just put up a gossip page and assign Kornblut the top spot? Who are these people that control the information we get these days and why are they getting paid for it? As far as I can see, she’s just hoping the White House will veer more right than ever and bash a few more hippies. What ever did we do to deserve a press corps like this? At least Ulsterman’s serial insider conversations were better written.
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Heh! Having read an article in NYT that not only was a perfect Obama fluff piece but also incredibly bad writing, I ‘researched’ the author and came up with this about her (yes, sadly another “her”) from Brad DeLong (from a couple of years back):
“New York Times Death Spiral Watch.
[She] badly needs to go back to school and be retrained for another career–but for what? What profession would possibly benefit?
Why oh why can’t we have a better press corps?”
How can you get away with just printing rumors from unnamed sources? Who actually takes her seriously?
How can Obama’s crowd get away with interpreting the message of voters as telling them to act more like Republicans than ever?
Well, with all these unnamed sources, you don’t know who it is, that’s the thing … it drives me nuts. What are they doing here? Inkling it to test the waters or is it wishful thinking on her part after talking to one person?
I saw her drivel early this am. I started to link it but then thought why waste the key strokes. She is pitiful but yet has a forum. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS WORLD?
OBAMA IS A JUDAS GOAT.
And on another note –
Circumcision Ban May End Up on S.F. Ballot
“You shouldn’t be performing cosmetic surgery for other people,” said Schofield, who points out that female circumcision is banned, but was covered by Blue Cross insurance in the United States into the 1970s.
“Tattooing a child is banned as a felony and circumcision is more harmful than a tattoo,” said Schofield, who believes religious traditions should change.
People can practice whatever religion they want, but your religious practice ends with someone else’s body,” said Schofield. “It’s a man’s body and…his body doesn’t belong to his culture, his government, his religion or even his parents. It’s his decision.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/12/health/main7048210.shtml?tag=stack
The comments are interesting. Can’t wait for the crazy religious right to roll in on this.
Will this create enough of a national uproar to distract from the lack of jobs?
Is male circumcision currently covered by private medical insurance providers?
Interesting. If I had a son I was going to pass on this procedure. It just seemed really unnecessary.
I have been listening to my gay male friends argue this issue for over 35 years. The discussions are very heated. Honestly, mostly they argue based on what they are attracted to (or their own circumstance) and not over issues of controlling another person.
Can’t imagine where it will go if the rest of the country gets invested in the discussion as it regards dominion over their own children.
I had a long conversation with my dad who wasn’t circumsized about this and then to my husband that was. It didn’t seem like it was worth the trouble to do it and the pain as long as you teach boys good hygiene. I never subscribed to the make him look like daddy theory of it.
The advisers are deeply concerned about winning back political independents, who supported Obama two years ago by an eight-point margin but backed Republicans for the House this year by 19 points. To do so, they think he must forge partnerships with Republicans on key issues and make noticeable progress on his oft-repeated campaign pledge to change the ways of Washington
I don’t know how far this is inept journalistic invention.
I just felt when I saw Obama make a statement about the mid term losses, that he couldn’t wait to get back to the promise of his post-partisan campaign pitch. Happiness was hovering over him.
WaPo has always liked the idea of Beltway Bipartisanship-back when BO was looking for a Vice President, David Ignatius was arguing for a ticket that included Chuck Hagel or Mike Bloomberg.
My complaint is she won’t name who she’s saying said this to her. I would hope she had some other source than reading it in another newspaper. Does this make sense?