Via LGM, Mark Halperin seems intent on making sure that the 3 people who do not already consider him an idiot do. Consider this:

For instance, being all things to all people worked wonderfully well for Bill Clinton the candidate, but when his presidency ran into trouble, this trait was disastrous, particularly in the bumpy early years of his presidency and in the events leading up to his impeachment. The fun-loving campaigner with big appetites and an undisciplined manner squandered a good deal of the majesty and power of the presidency, and undermined his effectiveness as a leader. What much of the country found endearing in a candidate was troubling in a president. When George W. Bush ran in 2000, many voters liked his straightforward, uncomplicated mean-what-I-say-and-say-what-I-mean certainty. He came across as a man of principle who did not lust for the White House; he was surrounded by disciplined loyalists who created a cheerful cult of personality about their candidate. As with Mr. Clinton, though, the very campaign strengths that got Mr. Bush elected led to his worst moments in office. Assuredness became stubbornness. His lack of lifelong ambition for the presidency translated into a failure to apply himself to the parts of the job that held less interest for him, often to disastrous effects. The once-appealing life outside of government and public affairs became a far-less appealing lack of experience. And Mr. Bush’s close-knit team has served as a barrier to fresh advice.

That the Media is incompetent seems to be Halperin's well hidden point. He makes it by comparing the worst President in history to Bill Clinton? He makes it by comparing the Media and the GOP's obsession with the President's sex life and the Iraq Debacle?

Please, no more Mr. Halperin. You have effectively made your case. You are an idiot. We get it. We know that you do not understand "what it takes" to do legitimate and relevant journalism.

Update [2007-11-25 9:40:1 by Big Tent Democrat]: Paul Krugman adds an important point:

In his op-ed today, Mark Halperin describes George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign as follows: He came across as a man of principle who did not lust for the White House; he was surrounded by disciplined loyalists who created a cheerful cult of personality about their candidate.
Meanwhile, I didn’t do the up-close-and-personal stuff; I looked at what he actually said about policy. And from my point of view he “came across” as someone who lied, systematically and consistently, about taxes and Social Security.

Real journalists would have noticed as well. Mark Halperin still does not notice.

< Struggles of the Exonerated to Rebuild Their Lives | Why Edwards Is Done In Iowa: Change vs. Experience >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    There can't be that many idiots (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Lora on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 05:59:32 PM EST
    I consider it too much of a coincidence that the vast majority of the "idiots" identified in the media by BTD portray this criminal administration in a better light while portraying the Democrats in a poorer light.

    This is not idiocy.  This is deliberate.

    And doing it deliberately is idiocy. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:19:21 PM EST
    Because to do so they first convince themselves that they are not damaging their country.

    Or maybe they are brainwashed (none / 0) (#4)
    by Lora on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 09:14:53 PM EST
    Or else they don't care as long as they get paid for saying idiotic things.

    i read mr. halperin's op/ed (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 09:17:37 AM EST
    prior to reading your post. i even started to write a letter to the nyt's editor. i quickly realized it would be an exercise in futility; the time's was/is an exemplar of the "thought" process guiding mr. halperin, and dr. krugman did a much better job filleting him than i possibly could.

    a hundred years from now, when historians compare the presidencies of messrs. clinton & bush, they'll assume (rightfully) that the press went totally bonkers in 2000, resulting in the most unlikely follow-up to a vastly more talented and constructive administration. it's as though the media exhibited a collective "fear of success", giving us the total ineptitude of the past 7 years.

    they will note that the same occurred during the 2004 & 2008 campaigns, with only a few (such as dr. krugman) attempting to staunch the flow.