Harold Meyerson, in a generally patronizing and now typical for him, atrocious, column, also proves he knows nothing about the Florida and Michigan controversies:

Had Florida and Michigan conducted their primaries the way the other 48 states conducted their own primaries and caucuses -- that is, in accord with the very clear calendar laid down by the DNC well before the primaries began -- then Clinton's marchers would be utterly justified in their claims.

(Emphasis supplied.) Psssst, Harold. This whole mess started because New Hampshire did not like the calendar and jumped ahead of Nevada. This infuriated Michigan who then thought, well if the calendar does not mean anything, we'll move up too. And then in Florida, the GOP controlled legislature and governor decided to do some mischief and moved up their primary one week, but AFTER the so called all important "early 4 state window." [More...]

Meyerson is ignorant of the facts, but that does not stop him from falsely smearing Hillary Clinton. And attacking feminism and pooh poohing sexism as an aside. It is funny to see Meyerson talk about situational ethics. When it comes to Hillary Clinton, he has no ethics, in any situation. It is clear that he did not even bother to familiarize himself with the facts of this situation - his goal was to smear Hillary Clinton and there was no need for facts. Indeed they are an impediment, when that is the goal.

Speaking for me only

< Gallup on Hillary's Swing State Advantage | About The Obama News Network (NBC) >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Harold got an ear/eye full from me (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:03:36 PM EST
    a bit ago thanks very much to the Daily Howler's observations about his squishy relationship with facts.

    It's the typos (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Lahdee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:06:05 PM EST
    isn't it.
    What's that old saying, "never type angry?"

    Some of the more telling tidbits of the story go (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by halstoon on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:25:52 PM EST
    untold in the dressing down of Meyerson. For instance:

    The "Clinton campaign supported the calendar, and the sanctions against Michigan and Florida, until Clinton won those states and needed to have their delegations seated."

    In fact, "Last August, when the DNC Rules Committee voted to strip Florida (and Michigan, if it persisted in clinging to its date) of its delegates, the Clinton delegates on the committee backed those sanctions. All 12 Clinton supporters on the committee supported the penalties."

    The truth--as Meyerson points it out--is that "Not a single Clinton campaign official or DNC Rules Committee member, much less the candidate herself, said at the time that the sanctions imposed on Florida or Michigan were in any way a patriarchal plot or an affront to democratic values."

    On top of having the audacity to point out such trivialities as the fact that all of Clinton's loyalists on the DNC RBC supported the penalties, Meyerson pooh-poohs sexism by noting that "it's certainly true that along the campaign trail Clinton has encountered some outrageously sexist treatment."

    How he can live with himself after simply calling the sexist treatment of Sen. Clinton "outrageous" is beyond me.

     And how can he cite Harold Ickes and Patty Solis-Doyle?? As if Clinton's campaign manager and one of her top strategists actually represent her thinking on the issue at that time!?!?!???!!

    The Post should be ashamed, indeed!

    Some of my best friends are women (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:30:15 PM EST
    but . . .

    What a stupid comment.


    You got owned. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by halstoon on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:51:52 PM EST
    Deal with it.

    Glad to see you're keeping up your 'fair & objective' posture!

    Keep it up! Maybe Clinton will win after all...


    I'm totally up for wrecking all that's good'n pure (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:31:04 PM EST
    Clinton's supporters have every right to demonstrate on Saturday, of course. But their larger cause is neither democracy nor feminism; it's situational ethics. To insist otherwise is to degrade democracy and turn feminism into the last refuge of scoundrels.

    What crusading idiocy.

    I wasn't aware that the (Meyerson-endorsed) right to demonstrate was limited to the (hollowing Meyerson standard) that this right simultaneously endangered not only democracy but feminism itself!

    In that order!

    And Great Thundering Goddess only knows where scoundrels like Meyerson could turn were feminism to lose the @ss-sunken threadbare La-Z-Boy recliner with his name on it!

    Ladies, please, think what you're risking Saturday!!  

    I applaud (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:01:45 PM EST
    Myerson's concern(trolling) about feminism.


    Thanks for reading his article so I didn't have to.


    I am glad (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:32:05 PM EST
    that I have had such a low opinion of the media for so long. That way I wasn't a bit surprised at how completely useless they are at doing the job they are supposed to do. You know, like informing the public. Getting the facts out to the people so that THE PEOPLE can make informed choices.

    It's frightening to me that not only does the media NOT inform us adequately, they now usurp the people's job of choosing.

    Just for me but I don't want the likes of Olbermann, Tweety, Andrea Mitchell, Rachel Maddow, David Shuster, Tucker Carlson, Dan Abrams or Joe Scarborough making my choises for me.

    Don't want O'Reilly, Hannity or Colmes doing it either.

    And God no to Wolf Blitzer, Jackassjack Cafferty and the predictably awful Gloria Borger.

    Making choices for me? None of the above. I'm a Joe Friday kinda gal, Just the facts, just gimme the facts!

    it IS, after all, the Post (none / 0) (#1)
    by ccpup on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:00:18 PM EST
    so what do you expect?  Clarity and honesty without bias?


    The Post (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:13:16 PM EST
    does really well as a kitty litter pan liner...

    my youngest dog (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ccpup on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:36:39 PM EST
    prefers either the Post or Maureen Dowd -- and thank God she's not spewing her tripe every day! -- in the morning.

    Or anything Murdoch-related.  

    My pup's very particular when it comes to his morning constitutional.  ;-P


    Also lay it under (none / 0) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:26:03 PM EST
    the cedar bark chips and it keeps the weeds down.

    I cancelled WaPo to unconstipate my cats (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:37:47 PM EST
    Needless to say, they were immediately relieved.

    Harold Meyerson could be a blogger (none / 0) (#2)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:01:28 PM EST
    that comes to make "mischief" at TL. Unbelieveable!!!

    This (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:01:55 PM EST
    It is clear that he did not even bother to familiarize himself with the facts of this situation - his goal was to smear Hillary Clinton and there was no need for facts.
    Is typically of a great many people these days.

    My New Theory (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by BDB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:04:56 PM EST
    Is that this election has become a battle between histories.  Those of us who insist on seeing the last 20 years as we believe they happened and those willing to embrace the media narrative and move on.  I think that's why there's so much bitterness.  It's not that I have to embrace their candidate, it's that I have to embrace their "truth," which is closely tied to media narrative I've been fighting for 20 years.  

    Yep its like the media has offered them.... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:08:51 PM EST
    ...a an invitation to the prom (the only condition is that they renounce and reject the Clintons) and they have accepted it.

    Here's NPR Morning Edition's (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:12:21 PM EST
    retrospectiscope of coverage of Clinton's campaign.  All justified, it turns out.  Really irritating.

    Excellent insight (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:07:35 PM EST
    The Hunting of the President. Should be required reading.

    Really good book (none / 0) (#28)
    by RalphB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:47:05 PM EST
    Gene Lyons has always had his head screwed on extra straight.

    MCMers don' need no stinking facts. (none / 0) (#29)
    by jawbone on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:51:02 PM EST
    I do remember when Harold Meyerson actually made sense!

    CDS is a strange and sad ailment.


    I get the opinion (none / 0) (#4)
    by Lahdee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:03:09 PM EST
    that he's depending on his audience to not know the facts. He's got the mass audience, he makes the rules.

    Isn't that how it's played?

    Willful Ignorance... (none / 0) (#7)
    by maladroit on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:04:30 PM EST
    ...of the facts has become a plague of this primary season...

    Just read ... (none / 0) (#9)
    by mogal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:05:23 PM EST
    Lanny Davis will join Lou to talk politics on Dobbs radio show. Hope someone can post on it-should be good.

    Meh (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:24:14 PM EST
    Lanny Davis is arguing nonsense imo.

    Lanny Davis's argument doesn't make sense either (none / 0) (#11)
    by phdby40 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:06:51 PM EST
    Davis said 50% of the uncommitted should go to Hillary in Michgan. Why in the world wouldn't a Clinton voter just vote for her if her name was on the ballot? This does not seem fair either...

    Lanny Davis is a dope (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:23:52 PM EST
    He is hurting Clinton with his silly arguments.

    Are those (none / 0) (#25)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:08:57 PM EST
    Obama supporters who are spouting nonsense hurting him with their silly arguments?  :)

    Yes (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:39:41 PM EST
    How to favor Obama:: Twist when you have to - DNC (none / 0) (#13)
    by TalkRight on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:08:47 PM EST
    How to favor Obama:: Twist when you have to - DNC

    Regarding MI:
    The basic issue is that party rules leave little room for granting the uncommitted delegates to Obama, because there's no way to verify that the voters were specifically voting for him.

    But, the memo argues, "it can be argued that the voters expressing the 'Uncommitted' preference were expressing a preference for at least one of the candidates whose names did not appear on the January 15 ballot, rather than rejecting the entire field.

    "Therefore, following the principle of fair reflection of presidential preference, it can at least be said that the "Uncommitted" delegate positions should be considered as being allocated collectively to the candidates whose names did not appear on the ballot: Senator Barack Obama, former Senator John Edwards, Senator Joseph Biden and Governor Bill Richardson."

    So DNC can argue when it wants and when it favors Obama. Why don't they argue that FL could not change their primary date, so there should be NO penalty. AND in MI Obama took his name without the rules calling for it. It was wrong on HIS part to remove his name. SO he gets 0%. That's WHAT the actual rules say to be done.