John Solomon, the AP reporter whose jihad agaist Harry Reid has proven to be a deep embarrassment for the AP, falls up:

GOP oppo research push-over John Solomon headed from the AP to Washington Post?!?! Apparently they're going to set him up with his own investigative unit. Presumably in addition to the one he has at the RNC.

What a self indictment by the Washington Post.

Here is another example of the Media marginalizing the views of the American People:

Americans are not necessarily intent on getting all U.S. troops out right away, the poll indicated. The survey found strong support for a two-year timetable if that's what it took to get U.S. troops out. Seventy-one percent said they would favor a two-year timeline from now until sometime in 2008, but when people are asked instead about a six-month timeline for withdrawal that number drops to 60 percent. Public opinion expert Karlyn Bowman of the conservative American Enterprise Institute said stronger support for the longer timetable could reflect a realization that it takes time to change strategy.

60% say out in 6 months and a so called expert says this reflects a realization that it takes time to change strategy (read stay longer). I mean, this is just false. If 60% said stay the course, they would not be rationalizing it away like this.

More.

26 years ago, on December 8, 1980, John Lennon was shot and killed outside his apartment building on the upper West Side of New York. I heard about it while laying in bed in Denver that night while my then-spouse was watching Monday Night Football. Howard Cosell interrupted the program to announce "An unspeakable tragedy tonight in New York City."

I was nine months and three weeks pregnant -- way overdue -- and had just returned from the hospital where they tried to induce labor but failed. Immediately after hearing Cosell's announcement, I heard a loud pop. My water had finally broken. I rushed to the hospital and a few hours later, at 1:00 am MT, the TL kid was born. I tell more about the events of that night here, and how for the past 26 years, I have told the TL kid that when John Lennon's spirit left his body, it must have entered his.

Apprentice 6 will be filmed in LA instead of New York this year. That's not the only change. It will focus on the haves vs. haves nots:

In a compelling social experiment of haves and have nots, contestants this season will have to earn the right to live like Trump.

Each week, the contestants on the winning team will get to live in a luxurious mansion. But contestants on the losing team will have to sleep outside in tents in the back yard of the mansion with outdoor showers and port-a-potties, giving contestants more incentive than ever to win their tasks each week.

The decision-makers at CNN must be disappointed to learn that appealing to right wing extremism hasn't helped the Headline News ratings:

As mentioned last week, six months ago Headline and MSNBC were running neck and neck, now it isn’t even a horse race. The addition to Headline’s primetime lineup of the outrageous Nancy Grace and the slightly demagogic Glenn Beck has done nothing to close the gap.

Slightly?

Perhaps the ratings will force CNN to notice that viewers would rather enjoy a mix of rationality, humor, and solid reporting than vicious attacks and unsubstantiated innuendo.

Credit to David Ignatius and John Harris of the Washington Post for admitting mistakes and rededicating themselves to truthtelling.

Ignatius admitted:

In a column last week, I praised Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel for his prescient early warnings about the risks of U.S. involvement in Iraq. Some readers complained that for all his prescience, Hagel still voted to support the war, and that I was ignoring the many Democrats who were similarly wary of Iraq -- and who voted against war funding. These readers are right. Hagel took political risks expressing his concerns back in 2003, but so did Democrats who voted against the Iraq mission despite a vitriolic barrage from the administration.

I have been very hard on Mr. Ignatius. Fairness requires we acknowledge and thank Ignatius for this correction.

Similarly, and more importantly, John Harris accepts some critiques that have been levelled at the Media:

In my experience, the vast majority of political reporters approach ideological questions with what you might call centrist bias. . . . It took me a while to realize how this instinct for rationalist, difference-splitting politics can itself be a form of bias. . . Who needs a bunch of reporters popping off with their views? It is hard enough—and honorable enough—to aim to report and analyze politics fairly and with a disciplined effort to transcend bias. That is what we will do in this new venture.

Good for you and your new venture Mr. Harris. Credit to you for acknowledging mistakes. I look forward to seeing your future work.

Bob Somerby does excellent though sometimes he goes off the rails. But his column today is Grade A, as he explains in clear detail how our Media simply fails at its job. This time he discusses Margaret Carlson's latest travesty in discussing Al Gore and the 2000 election:

There are no words, except bad words, to describe this new column by Margaret Carlson . . . [She] muses about the lessons we can learn from the events of Campaign 2000. And omigod! Even today—even after Iraq—Carlson simply refuses to stop. Her cohort is shameless beyond all compare. They’re disgraceful, like those who enable them:

CARLSON: George W. Bush's win (if that's what it was) over then-Vice President Al Gore was attributed in part to style. Gore took every opportunity to lecture voters on how a bill becomes a law. He even invoked the “Norwood-Dingell” patients' bill of rights legislation in a debate to show how much his 24 years of government experience mattered versus his opponent's five.

Even today—even after their conduct has led to Iraq—these people are determined not to stop. In the first paragraph quoted above, Carlson refers to the third Bush-Gore debate, the “town hall forum” held in St. Louis on October 17, 2000.

Question: Did Gore mention the Dingell-Norwood bill “to show how much his 24 years of government experience mattered versus his opponent's five?” Did he mention this bill because he “took every opportunity to lecture voters on how a bill becomes a law?” Yes, that’s what the laughable fellow did—if you live in the fictionalized world of a moral disgrace like Carlson. In the real world, though, a different reason intrudes; Gore mentioned Dingell-Norwood (not “Norwood-Dingell”) for a good and obvious reason. Bush had been saying that he supported a “patients bill of rights” too; Gore wanted to show that Bush was supporting a weak bill, one that was favored by industry.

Olberman really soaring:

Some highlights:

• Olberman's 266,000 Adults 25-54 represent a 63% increase versus November 2005. His 689,000 total viewers represent a 49% increase.

• Olbermann is now a solid number two among the cable newsers at 8pm. He was a distant number three a year ago.

• Competitively Bill O'Reilly continues to slide, -19% in total viewers from a year ago.

• A Year ago Paula Zahn on CNN maintained a 67% edge over Olbermann in total viewers, but her 11% slide coupled with Olbermann's 49% inclrease has catapulted Olbermann past her into second place.

Which makes this post by Red Stater Leon Wolf ridiculing me for pointing to Olberman as MSNBC's future in June 2005 all the more hilarious:

As proof that they deserve all the mockery we can muster, I offer you this from Armando at dKos:

I saw this ratings synopsis and it really impressed me that it looks like Olberman is really the biggest show on MSNBC now. Pretty impressive. Remember, Hardball was their signature show.

Now, I'll grant you, this is pretty hilarious in and of itself. When you click on the link itself, the one thing you are ACTUALLY impressed with, when checking Olberman's ratings, is that he is consistently pummeled each and every single night by O'Reilly, Zahn, and usually (!) Grace.

Looking forward appears to be a problem for the Right. Here was Michelle Malkin sneering at me for calling the January 2005 Iraq elections "an exercise in pretty pictures." I think maybe I was onto something.

Greg Sargent catches George Will being a dishonest boor:

Will omitted the pissy and rude quote spoken by the President which originally provoked Webb. Will cut out the line from the President where he said: "That's not what I asked you." In Will's recounting, that instead became a sign of Bush's parental solicitiousness: "The president again asked `How's your boy?'" Will's change completely alters the tenor of the conversation from one in which Bush was rude to Webb, which is what the Post's original account suggested, to one in which Webb was inexplicably rude to the President, which is how Will wanted to represent what happened.

Will Will correct himself and apologize to Webb? Of course not. Dishonest boors never do.

Michael Kinsley today:

There is something about the Web that brings out the ego monster in everybody. It's not just the well-established tendency to be nasty. When you write for the Web, you open yourself up to breathtakingly vicious vitriol. People wish things on your mother, simply for bearing you, that you wouldn't wish on Hitler.

Yep, Crossfire Kinsley decries the incivility. He defended Crossfire when Jon Stewart criticized:

A moment of surprising resonance in the campaign was Jon Stewart's Oct. 15 appearance on "Crossfire." Taking just a tad too seriously his recent appointment by acclamation as the Walter Cronkite of our time, Stewart begged the show's hosts to "stop hurting America" with their divisiveness. I used to work on that show, and I still think the robust, even raucous, and ideologically undisguised hammering of politicians on "Crossfire" is more intellectually honest than more decorous shows where journalists either pretend to neutrality or pontificate as if somebody had voted them into office.

Kinsley is a great writer no doubt but please no more decrying of the "incivility."

In an outstanding post that is must reading, Digby discusses the role of the Media in enabling the incompetence and dishonesty of the current Administration and the price we pay for their abject failure:

What mattered, by default, was the President's "instinct" to guide America across the fresh, post-9/11 terrain�a style of leadership that could be rendered within tiny, confidential circles. America, unbound, was duly led by a President, unbound.

I blame the media for this. After 9/11 they lost their minds and became unthinking hagiographers and adminstration cheerleaders to an absurd extent. The man's halting, incoherent first press conference after 9/11 scared me more than the attacks and yet the press corps behaved as if they were in the presence of a God whose stuttering, meandering gibberish were words uttered from on high. He was called a genius and compared to Winston Churchill. Paeans to his greatness were turned into best sellers. His "gut" was infallible. It was patently obvious that he was in over his head and yet this bizarre, almost hallucinogenic image of the man emerged in the media that actually made me question my sanity at times. It took years for this trance to wear off with a majority of the public and even longer in the media. It was one of the strangest phenomenons I've ever observed.

And this genuflection to the "character" of George W. Bush continued until Katrina, the unquestionable turning point. Digby's point highlights why it is so important that the Media be the watchdog and skeptic for our nation even if Bill O'Reilly accuses you of treason. That a Bill O'Reilly is treated as a respectable person by the Media is a disgrace of course but beside the point. The Media MUST do its job.

The reason is that the American People will rally round the flag in times of crisis, they will suspend disbelief and hope for the best from their leaders. I know I did after 9/11. As Digby writes, in the days immediately after 9/11, President Bush seemed alarmingly inept. It was frightening. But when Bush gave his great address to a joint sesion of Congress on September 20, 2001, I wanted to believe and suspended my own disbelief. I wanted to believe he was up to the job. It was the inexplicable drive to invade Iraq that awoke me from my slumber. Before that, I took the one piece of evidence that could indicate that Bush was up to the job and ignored everything else.

Today David Ignatius discovers the virtues of opposing the Iraq Debacle, if you are a Republican:

What would make a Hagel candidacy interesting is that he can claim to have been right about Iraq and other key issues earlier than almost any national politician, Republican or Democratic. Though a Vietnam veteran and a hawk on many national security issues, he had prescient misgivings about the Iraq war -- and, more important, the political courage to express these doubts clearly, at a time when many politicians were running for cover.

Apparently that is a good thing if you are a Republican but not if you are a Democrat. You see, Ignatius wrote this in January 2003:

[General Wesley] Clark's argument, in simple terms, is that unless the United States can bring a strong coalition into a war against Iraq, it may put itself in greater danger. The chief threat to U.S. security right now is al Qaeda, he argues. Disarming Iraq is important too, he says, but it's not the most urgent task.

The Bush administration's mistake in Iraq, says Clark, is one of priorities. "They picked war over law. They picked a unilateralist approach over a multilateral approach. They picked conventional forces over special-operations forces. And they picked Saddam Hussein as a target over Osama bin Laden."

Clark worries that the Iraq policy is fatally flawed because it's likely to create new recruits for America's main enemy -- the Islamic fundamentalists who destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. He recalls a military dictum from his days as commander of the Army's National Training Center: "There are only two kinds of plans -- ones that might work and ones that won't work. You have to avoid a plan with a fatal flaw."

. . . Clark doesn't doubt that overwhelming U.S. military power would quickly crush Saddam Hussein's relatively weak forces. Indeed, he gave a dazzling briefing for global leaders at the World Economic Forum here this week about how U.S.-led forces will move toward Baghdad. His concern, instead, is about what comes after -- "the unpredictability of consequences," as he puts it. Clark fears that the new dangers generated by a war in Iraq might outweigh any gains from disarming Saddam Hussein.

How come Ignatius has never extolled the virtues of a Clark candidacy? This appears to be the Ignatius corollary to IOKIYAR theory - Republicans against the Iraq Debacle are Presidential timber, Democrats against it are part of the Loony Left. I wonder if Ignatius realizes how brainwashed he has become - you would think he would favor Presidential candidates named Romney.