Joe Klein wastes his pixels and our time lighting into Glenn Greenwald. Whatev - Klein will never be able to move far enough left to placate his audience, as much as he tries - the Atrios/Greenwald screamers have had good success in their goal of working the refs (OK, Bush helped...). However, I *may* be burying the lead - in the email leaked by Greenwald, Klein makes no attempt to conceal his partisan rooting interest in Democratic success, which *may* have led to some awkward moments with his editors. That is pure guesswork, BTW - I can think of plenty of commentators who make no attempt to hide their party preference; I just can't recall how Klein is marketing and positioning himself.
As to Klein's points about Greenwald, no kidding - Greenwald used to offer 5,000 word variations on "Bush Sucks" on a daily basis. The one constant was lots of links to his "research", much of which was mischaracterized.
Ahh, but those links are to ancient history. Closer to home, it was just last week that Greenwald managed six breathless updates to his post on the story that Tom Ridge had accused Evil BushCo of politicizing the terror alerts, yet we never got a seventh update mentioning a little August-October problem, namely, Ridge was describing an October situation where the alert was *not* raised. (I did lose track in subsequent days, so perhaps Greenwald addresses this eventually.)
FOR THOSE WHO MUST KNOW: Michael Calderone of Politico digs into the Journolist spat and provides this puzzler:
Time's Joe Klein, one of several hundred journalists, bloggers and policy wonks who contribute to Journolist, a private list-serve that I profiled last March, wrote that Salon's Glenn Greenwald "knows little about politics, less about journalism and cares not a whit about the national security of the United States."
"I find the Limbaugh-like, knee-jerk devotion of his flock depressing," Klein added.
Greenwald is not on the Journolist, either as himself or under a pseudonym? Really?
OTHER, POSSIBLY LARGER QUESTIONS I CAN ONLY ASK: Does Joe Klein maintain a public pretense of being an objective journalist? He quite clearly declares his rooting interest in the Dems in the excerpted email, which may be the real reason he has a problem with it. Here we go, from Klein:
or here:
I am not clear whether Klein pretends to position himself as an observer rather than a rooter at TIME, so I am only speculating when I say that his real annoyance may be due to the publication of his partisan positioning. Over to Mickey!
OUR SUGGESTION TO TALK SHOW BOOKERS:
What host will bring Klein and Greenwald together? From the comments - "Man I love hot blue on blue action".
Don't forget to run a camera in the green room.
When asked by some lib friends of mine about Obama's performance so far I just say that I think Bush's third term is going well.
Sure, the carpets in John Bolton's former office needed to be replaced, but that seems to be the only significant change in foreign policy.
Posted by: BumperStickerist | September 01, 2009 at 07:18 AM
Here's Klein's time piece, and the bottom line:
He also recapitulates one of the original e-mails he says Greenwald declined to include in his dump: And here's commentary from Politico's Michael Calderone on the JList roots of the "spat": Seems to me the bigger issue is the one in Klein's first e-mail dump (sexed-up in my own inimitable idiom): Greenwald's writings are a remarkably useful stand-in for those of an enemy propagandist. The idea that he's a hypocrite for publishing e-mails (well, duh) or that there's some sort of privilege to pseudonymity (not so clear) is relatively unpersuasive.Posted by: Cecil Turner | September 01, 2009 at 07:54 AM
Lib circular firing squad. More popcorn!!
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 01, 2009 at 08:00 AM
Blue on blue. Sort of what's going on in the Democrat party and all of left-liberal land these days. This is why I am urging all political pundits, commentators, strategists and wonks on the right to stop giving the left and the Dems and Obama any ideas on how to move to center and improve their ratings. I prefer they continue to disintegrate right before our eyes as we eat Cap'ns popcorn. Time to buy some Orville Redebacker stock.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 01, 2009 at 08:15 AM
OT but damn close:
Bill Whittle's latest slice and dice at LUN.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 01, 2009 at 08:17 AM
Klein participates in a little of his own, eating his own. Man I love hot blue on blue action. Obama is going to rip this Democrat coalition into two separate and unequal pieces. And that will be the saving of our democracy. Thanks for the cannibalism, Joe. Soldier on. Want some ketchup?
Posted by: Gmax | September 01, 2009 at 08:23 AM
Man I love hot blue on blue action.
It's early but I'm nominating that for line of the day.
Posted by: Jane | September 01, 2009 at 08:27 AM
I know you guys think I'm a Democrat and a Liberal. But stuff like this from Joe Klein illustrates why I am not:
I can't stomach this kind of stuff -- the idea you can force a major takeover of a segment of the economy by foolng all of the people some of the time.
Posted by: Appalled | September 01, 2009 at 08:32 AM
Greenwald is not on the Journolist, either as himself or under a pseudonym?
You...you...you mean he's not...PUBLISHED?!?! >-D
Posted by: Darth Venomous | September 01, 2009 at 08:37 AM
Bill Whittle's latest slice and dice at LUN.
Every time I think I've seen the best Whittle yet he outdoes it the next time. The most unexceptional preznit ever getting confused over the definition of exceptionalism; brilliant, is this what produces David Brooks's mandingo mancrush? Columbia and Harvard must be so proud. The next person that tells me how smart Bammers is better be wearing conversational kevlar.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 01, 2009 at 08:50 AM
Perhaps Joe could tell us what will be in the final bill .. so at least then we that take aim at a meaningful target instead of this amorphous cameleon of a bill which always seems to make everybody wrong when talking/criticizing it.
Exactly how does Joe know what will be in the final bill ?Posted by: Neo | September 01, 2009 at 08:55 AM
"I know you guys think I'm a Democrat and a Liberal"
Not me. On the scale between intentions and consequences you seem to fall closer to the first. Reading intentions may be something you are better at than others but it's always risky and often leads to flawed analysis IMO.
Posted by: boris | September 01, 2009 at 08:56 AM
"... the idea you can force a major takeover of a segment of the economy by foolng all of the people some of the time."
Why shouldn't Joe Klein believe that? He's fooled his bosses at Time Magazine into thinking he's an unbiased journalist, when he's clearly a propogandist working for Democrat interests.
He's revealed that the editors at Time Magazine are buffoons.
Posted by: timeguy | September 01, 2009 at 08:58 AM
Yes, Klein, is only marginally less deranged
then the likes of Michael Moore and Bill Maher in that statement, who at last recall
wanted to put an intern's head in Baucus's bed. But that is the M.O., they want to
seize the 'reins of the 'commanding heights'
of the economy. But a herd of wolverines, from all over, and a gal from the Klondike
has made it a mite difficult
Posted by: bishop | September 01, 2009 at 08:58 AM
He's fooled his bosses at Time Magazine into thinking he's an unbiased journalist...
Thanks, I needed a belly laugh.
Posted by: Rulez4daLittlePeeps | September 01, 2009 at 09:09 AM
Appalled, I've always regarded you as a grumpy contrarian intent on poking holes in arguments presented here. If I were forced to characterize your politics, I'd say it's an oddly unique strain of libertarianism.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 01, 2009 at 09:11 AM
I sincerely hope The One is a one-termer and a lame duck after 2010.
Posted by: fdcol63 | September 01, 2009 at 09:13 AM
Here's yet another example of this strain of plebiscite mania, from someone who forgets that the plebiscite is for popular
things, in the LUN:
Posted by: bishop | September 01, 2009 at 09:15 AM
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2009/09/back-from-vacation-bammy-goes-golfing.html>Fore!!!!
Disclaimer: Not all parts of the above were copy and pasted. Any words or sentences not faithful to the original are incidental to the retyping on the part of the person placing the comment on Just One Minute, and not the fault or responsibility of the article's original author.
Posted by: hit and run | September 01, 2009 at 09:29 AM
Drudge headline...Slip Sliding Away. Waterloo anyone? Gawd, I hope so.
Posted by: Sue | September 01, 2009 at 09:37 AM
Just to be clear, Slip Sliding Away is the headline. I added the rest.
Posted by: Sue | September 01, 2009 at 09:38 AM
Gibbs is a loathesome jerk.
Posted by: fdcol63 | September 01, 2009 at 09:38 AM
He's fooled his bosses at Time Magazine into thinking he's an unbiased journalist...
I gave up the Time subscription years ago when I figured out that the once-fabled editors had been replaced by "4th graders" or an equivalent thereof ... so it's not hard to imagine Klein fooling them.
Posted by: Neo | September 01, 2009 at 09:43 AM
I sincerely hope The One is a one-termer and a lame duck after 2010.
Holder is working to make sure that doesn't happen.
My guess is the White House intends to control every aspect of the 2010/2012 elections, under the guise of civil rights.
Posted by: pagar | September 01, 2009 at 09:46 AM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll>Obama now at 45% approval at Ras. New low.
Which is lower? Obama's approval #s or his front 9 score from yesterday?
Only one of those is supposed to be low, of course.
Posted by: hit and run | September 01, 2009 at 09:47 AM
He's fooled his bosses at Time Magazine into thinking he's an unbiased journalist
Um, Time doesn't even pretend to be unbiased anymore. Did you see the 13 BHO covers?
Posted by: Mark | September 01, 2009 at 09:50 AM
How long before Obama's approval #s match his bowling score from the campaign?
Posted by: hit and run | September 01, 2009 at 09:51 AM
He's fooled his bosses at Time Magazine into thinking he's an unbiased journalist,
He's a columnist, so he doesn't have to be unbiased. But he specifically states in his Journolist messages that it is his goal to get Democrats elected. Yet TIME put him on McCain's campaign plane.
Republicans giving Klein an interview is like allowing Howard Dean to interview them. His goal is going to be to make Republicans look bad, and everyone reading his columns should know that. He's an activist.
Posted by: MayBee | September 01, 2009 at 09:54 AM
Remember, Klein's the anonymous author of "Primary Colors," who spent months lying in the face of all his journalist friends, and his bosses at Newsweek, until he was outed.
With a character-defining moment such as that, why would anyone believe anything he says? I swear, the MSM has the intellectual capability and moral authority of a class of five-year-olds.
Posted by: Lou Shumaker | September 01, 2009 at 10:03 AM
I regret that as much as Ted Kennedy went to his grave regretting that he didn’t make a universal health care deal with Richard Nixon. And I bet that he also regrets EMK went to his grave without working that deal with the Kremlin in '84 that Teddy and Gee-Mah were working on to elevate Mondale vis-a-vis Captain America. Maybe the Boys in the Kremlin should have worked harder, as subsequent events showed that Ronnie & Co. had the ultimate cure for them [and a temporary one for EMK & Gee-mah's orcs].
Time & Newsweak currently have a comic strip motif on the death of conservatism, yadda, yadda,.....
Will Rogers was right, and the Hindenburg didn't end cries of .... "o, the humanity!" as crashing and burning continues on a daily basis on the left side of the road.
Posted by: daveinboca | September 01, 2009 at 10:07 AM
My favorite story of the day at LUN.
Media Stunned as ObamaCare Unravels
By ignoring and ridiculing the tea parties and town halls, mainstream news reporters missed the story of Americans worried about the ever-expanding government. Now they are playing catch-up.
Maybe they will cover the DC Tea party after all.
Posted by: Jane | September 01, 2009 at 10:10 AM
How long before Obama's approval #s match his bowling score from the campaign?
That (Shock: Obama's Approval Rating Even Lower Than His Bowling Score!) is the winning headline, alright.
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | September 01, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Ridge is on my local AM station with Mark Davis. I've ignored most of it because I am boycotting Ridge, but what little bit I've heard he sounds a little bit combative.
Posted by: Sue | September 01, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Can anyone believe or understand why Zero is doing this?
Obama Celebrating Ramadn Tuesday?
He must not be concerned one bit about his slide in the polls which moves me to one of my large fears--and that is next years elections are going to be rigged in favor of the D's.
Posted by: glasater | September 01, 2009 at 10:43 AM
I half listened to him last night Sue. His excuse is that he was "musing" not stating facts.
What a jerk.
Posted by: Jane | September 01, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Jennifer Rubin quotes David Broder: "Obama’s patient, didactic responses have not quieted the reaction, let alone built fresh support for a vitally needed overhaul of our expensive, dysfunctional health system."
Broder is bearing false witness. I wonder if he realizes that.
Posted by: DebinNC | September 01, 2009 at 10:48 AM
To me Ridge's "musing" was punching up the story per an agent's advice to promote a doa book.
Posted by: clarice | September 01, 2009 at 10:52 AM
The percentage of likely voters who approve of Obama's performance is now lower than the percentage of actual voters who pulled the lever for McCain/Palin.
It will be amusing to watch the rest of the polls follow the Rasmussen bellwether.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 01, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Deb--
Broder is unusually clearheaded for a lifelong liberal living in Washington. But he suffers from the same problem George Will and Charles Krauthammer do: He reads his own stupid newspaper, and, what's worse...he actually believes it!
Ha! If he just read American Thinker he would have a damn clue. Maybe it can be printed out on thin, wide sheets of paper, folded and slipped under his door in the morning.
Posted by: Fresh Air | September 01, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Please, for context: What does LUN stand for? This is not a joke.
Posted by: John Stone | September 01, 2009 at 11:04 AM
But he skipped National Prayer Day. Wonder what this means?
Posted by: Sue | September 01, 2009 at 11:06 AM
LUN is "link under name". If you click on their name, it will take you to the story they are talking about.
Posted by: Sue | September 01, 2009 at 11:09 AM
But he skipped National Prayer Day. Wonder what this means?
This is just more snarky activity from the mulatto punk who "surreptitiously" gave people "the finger" during the endless campaign, knowing full well that he was doing it but always having a fallback position in which he could claim it was an innocent gesture and that people are being delusional by bringing it up. In this case it will provoke discussion that he's a "closet muslim" and subsequently his MSM enablers can counter this with how people are irrationally reading things into his actions. It's really a childish game of "gotcha" but I haven't seen anything from him to suggest anything more mature than that.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 01, 2009 at 11:23 AM
"Wonder what this means?"
For one thing, it gives Obama a chance to utilize TOTUS and wax eloquent. It's all about rehabilitating his image now imo. No more "acted stupidly" and "wee-wee'd up". His every word and mannerism will be orchestrated and rehearsed until perfect. I bet the mammoth task of prepping him for the role he will next play is why his "vacation" is being extended.
Posted by: DebinNC | September 01, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Sue:
Thank you.
Posted by: John Stone | September 01, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Greenwald is not on the Journolist, either as himself or under a pseudonym? Really?
ISTR he was on the "Townhall" list, though. Likely some overlap which kept those two lists in sync.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | September 01, 2009 at 04:31 PM
I'm glad TM noted Glenn's habit of linking crap that in no way supports his posts. He routinely misrepresents links or just pretends they back up his assertions when they are nowhere near close to what he says. And Klein is right about the creepy "Acolytes" -- Mona, anyone?
Posted by: TOPSECRETK9 | September 01, 2009 at 06:19 PM
In Re: Terror Alerts.
The answer to this is simple: The Dept. of Homeland Security is a Federal Agency. FOIA the terror alerts from September to December, 2004. Once you have that info the next questions are elementary.
Where the alerts raised? If so when and for what reason?
Where the alerts lowered? If so when and for what reason?
Not so hard to find the truth here if anyone wants to.
BTW: The US Coast Guard has the terror alert color bar on its website, and has for years. This stuff isn't a secret.
Posted by: Mikey NTH | September 01, 2009 at 07:09 PM
"He quite clearly declares his rooting interest in the Dems, ..."
May I presume you are using the Aussie definition of 'rooting'?
Cheers
Posted by: J.M. Heinrichs | September 02, 2009 at 12:41 AM
I'm a little confused. Practically simultaneously, we're hearing accusations that Bush elevated the threat warning level to rig the election, and that Bush ordered Ridge NOT to elevate the threat level, presumably to rig the election.
Reality-based, these arguments.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | September 03, 2009 at 08:49 AM