The Importance Of Froomkin And Greenwald

Below, Jeralyn notes that the Huffington Post has hired Dan Froomkin. We are all pleased for Froomkin and HuffPo, if HuffPo lets Froomkin be Froomkin. Very few on the Left will note this important part of the story, but Glenn Greenwald will:

While this pairing is, in some ways, a natural one . . . there are also potential sources of tension. As a practitioner of what he calls "accountability journalism" -- "explaining how Washington works; pulling no punches" -- Froomkin has been a vehement critic of the Obama administration for the last several months, while The Huffington Post frequently trumpeted (some might say "cheerleading") the Obama campaign and even his presidency . . . Will Froomkin's harsh criticisms of Obama alienate an Obama-loving HuffPost readership?

[MORE . . .]

And given the central importance of Arianna Huffington's personal relationships with key media figures and those in power, will Froomkin's unrestrained criticisms of many of those same people undermine a key aspect of The Huffington Post's business and promotional strategies? . . .

Of the new professional class of bloggers, only Glenn Greenwald (and to some extent, Eric Boehlert) will present and address issues like these when it implicates so called progressives or Left blogs. It easy enough for me to do so - I do not make a living blogging. I do not need to roll any logs. But people like Froomkin and Greenwald make their living at this. Their work is indeed courageous and must be supported. It is critical.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Open Thread | Protecting Prisoners From Rape: First Steps >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And Somerby (whom Glenn quotes) (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 11:56:47 AM EST

    Who observes today: (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:00:38 PM EST
    Somerby is rarely given (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:35:07 PM EST
    credit for his meticulous chronicling of high crimes and misdemeanors on the part of the "liberal press."  Toiling away at his keyboard, with LexisNexis at hand, he alone told the story of the press's War on Gore and how they delivered GWBush into our undeserving laps.    

    For my money, he's a hero.   Too bad he doesn't get more recognition.


    I stopped reading HuffPo two years ago (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:13:12 PM EST
    What a relief. It simply isn't worth wading through all the muck there -- the overwhelming amount of advertising, the embarrassing cultishness of Obamaniacs, the mediocrity of so much of the blogging, the 24/7 coverage of Hollywood and all its idiots and the utter creepiness in the comment threads. But careful! Arianna is the Queen-who-must-not-be-crossed.

    Somehow it all reminds me of junior high school.  

    I wish Froomkin luck because I respect him, but I will not go looking for him over there.  

    I give a little mental whine (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:20:59 PM EST
    when I have to deal with the advertising tricks at Salon when I read Greenwald.

    I think I've only gone to HuffPo only a couple times and only because I clicked on a link.  It's like walking through crowded, noisy, poorly lit bar - I just want to find what I was looking for and get the heck OUT!

    I might go there if I managed to tweak my browser to show only formatted text.


    If you download the Firefox browser (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jtaylorr on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:30:15 PM EST
    and install the Adblock Plus plugin, you'll never see an ad on the internet again. I've haven't seen one in years.

    I was looking for words (none / 0) (#47)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 05:53:10 PM EST
    to express my sorrow at hearing Froomkin's decision to park his keyboard at Huffington's adolescent, insane asylum.

    You did it for me; thank you.


    Well said, I imagine huffPo's hiring of (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:35:08 PM EST
    Froomkin is a mixed blessing. But Arianna sees the writing on the wall; i.e. the press will turn on Obama, en masse - not today not tomorrow - but eventually when the corporate class says it's time. Froomkin will put her on the leading edge of that development.

    Let's not forget, Ariana is a business woman first and foremost... wait, she was a Republican first - same thing I guess.

    When Arianna professed conversion to the Democratic Party she said she did it "for the sex, dawlingk". I found that line funny but not very credible. IMO pro-sex people who have a real life aren't generally compulsive Clinton-haters.

    Was/is Froomkin a Clinton-hater? It's a question I'd put on any personality/character test. I hope he and Arianna don't have that trait in common.


    I wish I had stopped sooner (none / 0) (#40)
    by SeaMBA on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 03:08:32 PM EST
    I stopped reading it last year.  Their format changed at some point and it became harder to find articles of substance.

    That and the Obamamania.  

    Thankfully I found new and better places like Talkleft.


    BTD you may not make a living (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:17:49 PM EST
    doing this but, under Jeraln's stewardship, TL is one of the brightest, most tenacious, comprehensive, reality-based, progressive issue-oriented blogs in the field. You are an integral part of the TL experience.

    I sometimes disagree with you but you are a dynamic, hands-on blogger. I really appreciate your ongoing willingness to dig in and bat the ball back and forth.

    You are always generous in giving Greenwald his props. That reflects very well on you - Greenwald is pretty much the sanest voice in the vast wilderness.

    If only Salon had added Froomkin. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:18:10 PM EST

    Yeah. sigh.... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:22:32 PM EST
    I'm not too broke up though.  I figure if it isn't a good match, Froomkin will go free agent again and land somewhere else.

    It's a constantly evolving mediascape.


    I'm disappointed, and that has a lot to (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:27:21 PM EST
    do with my opinion of HuffPo, which I have not read in several years, other than when I occasionally follow links posted in comments or posts when I cannot get the content any other way.

    Maybe he will have the independence he needs to be effective, maybe he can raise the level of discourse and discourage the kind of "humorous" posts like the repulsive one from last week about Trig Palin that was nothing more than gratutitous trash.

    But maybe he will find that the independence needed to hold the media accountable and report what is so often missing in what we see and hear these days will not be tolerated at a place like HuffPo when it gets focused on their special loves; HuffPo may seem like it is the anti-WaPo, but has become quite a bit more Village-y than it aspired to be when it launched.

    I hope fans of Froomkin will be able to (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:30:50 PM EST
    find his writing amongst the intense coverage of Sarah Palin's words and deeds.

    Heh. (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:42:28 PM EST
    There was a diary at dkos today that exemplified the Trash Palin genre.  Nothing of substance, just gleeful trash talk.  No mention of her children, which was about the only positive thing I can say about it.

    I always wonder if they think that smacking Palin proves anything.  I don't hear any noises about Democrats gaining ground in Alaska.


    Someby nailed it (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:57:28 PM EST
    Briefly referenced above, but here's a bigger snip:

    THE DUMBNESS OF THE WHALE/Washington Post edition: We hadn't read The Huffington Post in some time. Yesterday, when we went there, we remembered why.

    Until recent decades, the public discourse was maintained by a carefully picked "elite"--the Edward R. Murrow crowd. Regular rubes weren't allowed to take part in these august discussions.

    At yesterday's Huffington Post, we began to remember why.

    No, it really doesn't make sense to report on "rumors"--or to cry, weep, sob and complain when the subject of your "rumors" tells you that you'll have to stop. (For the most part, even the mainstream press corps doesn't report on "rumors"--for example, by telling us how many weeks the "rumors" have been in circulation.) And Paul Begala's post was simply the work of a new, degraded man--a person who has begun to talk way down to the crowd. (In the past, that wasn't his way.) Meanwhile, did we say, just yesterday, that elite criticism of Palin has often been designed to tag her as "trailer trash?" Those kinds of elites are at HuffPo too, we saw when we read this sad, inane post. Headline: "Reading the Pictures: Palin Proud To Be Trash."

    Let's face it--we're all Sean Hannity now! At yesterday's HuffPo, we saw one of the largest collections of fruits and nuts we've ever seen all in one can.

    But let's postpone our review of that mess till tomorrow. For today, let's look at a bit of work from Murrow's elite successors. Let's start with Gene Robinson, insisting today that up has been thoroughly down.

    Why did Palin decide to resign? Like Robinson, we don't know. Unlike Robinson, we won't pretend that every part of last Friday's speech was "literally nonsensical"--though some parts plainly were. This morning, the Post begins to catch up on its reporting, discussing the string of ethics complaints with which Palin has been deluged. Is the nuisance of that deluge part of the reason Palin is leaving office? We have no way of knowing. But her statement on that subject wasn't "literally nonsensical," so Robinson--always a hack among hacks--pretends it was never said.

    Meanwhile, Robinson seems sure of one other thing: The criticism of Palin hasn't been sexist/elitist. Or if it has been, it won't be discussed by a great man like he. In Robinson's format, Palin has kept tricking fine men of his class into getting painted as sexist/elitist. Or something like that. This is what he says:

    ROBINSON (7/7/09): The thing is, Palin's unsuitability for high public office has been obvious all along. Tina Fey got it right; the rest of us were far too reluctant to state plainly that the emperor, or empress, has no clothes.

    There are basically two reasons the political class and the commentariat continue to speak and write about Palin as if she were a substantial figure whose presence on the national stage is anything but a cruel, unfunny joke. The first is fear--not of Palin and her know-nothing legions, but of being painted as elitist and sexist.

    From the beginning, Palin has been a master at maneuvering her critics into this trap.

    Clever Palin! She kept tricking the Murrow Elite, leading them into that trap! Robinson goes on to cite an example where Palin did cry wolf--where she did complain about elitism without a serious basis. (Palin's logic is often weak or non-existent.) But he forgets to note the other instances, where the complaint is correct.

    Unlike Robinson's poor misused commentariat, we were never "reluctant" to state the obvious--Palin was a horrible candidate, perhaps the worst candidate ever at the presidential level. But then, we also didn't have much trouble spotting the actual sexism and elitism exhibited by some of Robinson's crowd.

    I wish it was possible (none / 0) (#32)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 02:36:03 PM EST
    to discuss Palin's many flaws without being accused of sexism.  She has all of George W. Bush's flaws, but on steroids, and pointing out that Bush is flawed is no different than pointing out that Palin is also and in many of the same ways.

    She has been elevated far beyond her Peter Principle ceiling at least in part because some find her attractive [Bill Kristol, helloooo!], just as Bush got a free ride for other equally undeserved reasons, but it is her sheer, arrogant ignorance, laziness and pettiness, not the fact that she is a woman, that make her so embarrassing.

    Who WOULDN'T want to celebrate a first class intellect in an attractive package?  I would be the first, but I won't pay any attention to a cardboard cutout and I won't acknowledge sexism as the reason.  

    Michelle Obama is also a beautiful woman, but she has earned respect for her intellect and concrete accomplishments.  Is she subject to the same "sexist" attacks from the left that some here accuse Palin's non-fans of making?


    Hey, I'd love it (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 02:54:55 PM EST
    if people, especially the big names, discussed Palin's accomplishments or failings strictly in terms of her professional life.

    But they don't.  They seem unable to.  The second they are exposed to a catchy meme, accurate or otherwise, it burrows into their psyche.  Witness "pro choicers" who criticize Palin's...what else...choices.  OMG!  How could she...a mother...her children...!  (Apparently they think they are cleverly pushing back against the Family Values set.)

    There was a good solid discussion of Palin nominee who was rejected on Fresh Air today and some interesting discussion of Palin herself.  It's been ages since I've heard any discussion of Palin that doesn't make me cringe.


    Right (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 03:30:22 PM EST
    I don't remember any discussion of the Obama girls and how their father's run for the presidency affected them, except for the fact that they were going to get a puppy! (A fact we heard for over a year).

    But this is the kind of stuff she endured, and while it is from the blog Hot Air, it doesn't change the fact that these kind of attacks would have NEVER touched the Chosen One. Then there was this

    Of course, John Kerry thought it was funny to say that the wrong governor disappeared and it should have been Palin (when Mark Sanford went AWOL) - very reminiscent of that blowhard who passes himself of as a journalist Keith Olbermann, who thought a superdelegate should take HRC into a room and only the superdelegate should come out.  What a knee slapper!

    Then of course, we heard about her wardrobe, her looks, her accent, her laugh, etc.  None of which, have to do with criticisms of her policies or stands on issues, but why should we let things like important issues get in the way of trash blogging and trash reporting?


    Is that all? (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 06:24:57 PM EST
    we heard about her wardrobe, her looks, her accent, her laugh, etc.

    Her wardrobe was actually a valid point, since she spent a ton of money that wasn't hers, and far more than the McCain spent on his.  AFAIK the discussion was about the cost, not the style as it was for Hillary and Michelle.   Palin's looks were a big issue for Bill Kristol, and we heard a lot from her SUPPORTERS that she is a former beauty contestant.  Any female candidate who WINKS at the camera is asking for comments about her looks and shouldn't be surprised if they materialize.  I don't remember any comments on her laugh, but since her accent is as clearly feigned as Bush's is, that seems like an interesting subject.  

    The press was far worse to Hillary (her laugh, her CLEAVAGE, her clothes [the style, not their cost to the DNC], "Chelsea pimped out") and (terrorist fist bump, clothing choices, baby mama) Michelle Obama, but I didn't hear either of them crying about what victims they were.  I didn't see anything approaching that level of sexism WRT to Palin, and I could not care less about her kids.  

    I doubt that Palin's pregnant daughter wanted to be put on public display, but she was, and by Palin herself, not the press.  The fact of her pregnancy WRT to the abstinence only programs is relevant to Palin's politics, and seems like an appropriate subject also.

    My objections to Palin are on the basis of her ineptitude, shallowness, laziness, pettiness and ignorance, all qualities shared by George W. Bush.  I'm an equal opportunity incompetence hater.


    I wouldn't say (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 07:01:17 PM EST
    that Palin had it any worse than Hillary did, and certainly she didn't take the abuse for as long as Hillary, but that comparison hardly serves to defuse the charge of sexism!

    It's clear that there were and are many, many valid criticisms of Sarah Palin.  That doesn't change the fact that the criticisms were often voiced in very sexist or classist ways.


    Is that all??? (2.00 / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 07:21:46 PM EST
    Really??  You actually wrote that?  Despicable caricatures of her Down's syndrome newborn are apparently ok by so-called liberals.

    And then, of course, there were Obama supporters who wore these shirts (not necessarily this video, but people wore these t-shirts at many rallies with their Obama stickers and pins).

    Class acts.


    My objections to her are the same as yours (none / 0) (#55)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 07:01:28 PM EST
    Because I really prefer focusing on policy (and political) differences between candidates. But I believe you are employing subjective memory regarding the discussions of Palin's wardrobe. They were certainly not only about cost. Media and blog discussions of women's clothes, makeup and general attractiveness never stop at mere cost. But it bears noting that similar references were made -- ad nauseum -- about John Edwards' and John Kerry's hairstyles.

    You said it... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:31:50 PM EST
    HuffPo has become quite a bit more Village-y than it aspired to be when it launched.

    Agreed, but I think HuffPo actually aspired to be more Villag-y than it claimed at the outset.

    I'm still scratching my head as to why many self-identified progressive blogs though all it was such a victory for them when Obama posed the pre-cooked 'Iranian citizen' question to HuffPo's little Nico Pitney.

    Strange how the blogs were silent as the tomb when Helen Thomas criticized that particular incident - from the left - a couple of days later.

    I believe the Thomas remark had a stinging subtext: if pre-cooked questions are wrong for the establishment media they're also wrong for the blogs. Sort of like: if it was wrong for Bush, it's wrong for Obama. (Insert topic here.)


    Messy editing in my previous comment... (none / 0) (#20)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:40:05 PM EST
    FWIW the sentence in question should read:

    I'm still scratching my head as to why many self-identified progressive blogs thought it was such a victory for them when Obama posed the pre-cooked 'Iranian citizen' question to HuffPo's little Nico Pitney.


    Obviously (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:44:48 PM EST
    Neither you, not Helen Thomas, has followed the story very closely. Not surprised about you, but a bit surprised about Thomas.

    Maybe you should send... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by EL seattle on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 02:05:33 PM EST
    .... Helen Thomas some links that will explain the truth to her.

    Why's That? (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 02:14:08 PM EST
    She has her own agenda, as evidentially do you.

    Ironic. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 02:19:00 PM EST
    Deeply. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 02:27:39 PM EST
    Ironic? (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 02:34:37 PM EST
    Why's that. Because I believe what Nico Pitney said, and did not buy Milbank's revisionist hissy fit?

    HuffPo's "litttle" Nico Pitney..  It is amazing that because HuffPo largely supported Obama during the primaries, many cultists here continue to hold a grudge as if the flame wars are still on..


    No (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by sj on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 02:43:53 PM EST
    that's not why.

    ok (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 02:45:19 PM EST
    fill me in, if you care to...

    OK, I'll try (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by sj on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 12:02:57 PM EST
    Although it might be a mistake.

    squeaky, you KNOW I appreciate you but, on the matter of agendas, you appear to have one of that is determined to translate criticism of Obama into a misrepresentation of one's regard for SOS Clinton if, in your view, the commenter has a "history".  

    In practice what it means is that -- if one was doubtful about O from the beginning -- one cannot criticize him now without a scolding from you.  Hardly seems fair.  It's a variation on the way "serious" journalists still treat anyone critical of the Iraq war before the invasion as DFH (to quote Atrios) but converted cheerleaders are presumed to be Very Serious Persons.  If one's fears are being realized, one must STFU or be criticized as being bitter or worse.  For lagniappe, you might throw in a comment about SOS Clinton being one's "idol" and she is mockingly held up as "generic pol"  (clue:  it's the mocking part that's a problem)

    Anyway, this is troublesome to me as well.  On the other hand, I am in accord with most of your views on the arts.  And I appreciate your ability to "find stuff" and dig up and recognize The Next Big Story.

    But when (or if) you respond, remember that it's the "agenda" part of this comment that's significant.  Your agenda seems to be to squelch criticism of anyone who was not an origial O supporter.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 12:15:43 PM EST
    I get it. In this case, slamming Pitney (little Pitney) and all of HuffPo to keep a long gone vendetta going verges on absurd.

    And I do believe that I distinguish between serious criticism of Obama and mechanical dribble that is habitual, and empty.

    Yes, my so called agenda may be boring, but not particularly ironic in this case, imo.


    Again, (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by sj on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 02:01:49 PM EST
    the irony referenced had nothing to do with Pitney.  Or HuffPo.  And I never said it was boring.  I said it was troublesome (although I have said "tiresome" in the past.  Not the same as boring).  And even criticism that may be habitual in your eyes may still be valid and serious.  But because it's "habitual" the commenter just has an "agenda".  

    The irony is that you, with your agenda, are so dismissive of others having an agenda.  And really?  For myself?  What do I care from "agenda".  The way I see it, if you're right, you're right.  If you're worried, you're worried.  If you're reassured, you're reassured.  That's not an "agenda", whatever that means.  That's a POV.  And everyone is entitled to one.

    That's (probably) the last I'll say on this. I knew that trying to explain was a mistake.  :)

    Regardless, welcome back.


    I Got It (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 02:51:46 PM EST
    And still maintain that there is little irony in my previous comment. Everyone has an agenda, or most do. My point had little or nothing to do with the fact that Helen Thomas et al have an agenda per se, but that the quality of of Helen Thomas' et al, comment about Pitney having a prepared and prearranged question, is low due to their respective agendas.

    Those here want to believe that there was dirty business because is is a chance to sully both HuffPo and Obama, and Helen Thomas made an incorrect statement because blogs are a threat to her business.

    My agenda is to point out in this case there is something like ODS going on because the facts are and results of the question are clear. There was no prearranged question. Obama indicated to Pintney that he may call on him, and then Pitney asked Iranians for questions in case he was called on by Obama the next day.

    The very fact that Obama punted on a difficult and pointed question, not to mention important, should prove to anyone that Obama did not know the question in advance and there was not a certainty that he would call on Pitney.  


    HuffPo didn't just support Obama (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by ChrisO on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 04:32:06 PM EST
    I know a lot of people who supported Obama. I never let it affect my relationship with them. But HuffPo was a leading voice in the character assassination of Hillary Clinton, and the comments were particularly vicious. I haven't seen a leading Democrat receive that kind of treatment from other Dems since LBJ. Is there a reason I'm supposed to not hold a grudge? I can accept the election results and move on, but it doesn't mean I'm required to forget everything people did.

    OK (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 04:47:27 PM EST
    Not sure why you would have taken slamming a politician so personally, but so be it. Hard to live with that baggage I suppose, but maybe the anger gives you some energy. Peter Daou, Greg Mitchell, Jeralyn Merritt, Russ Feingold, Rob Johnson, Jane Fonda and now Dan Froomkin as well as many others write there. I do not check it on a daily basis, but have no aversion to it. Mostly I go there following links, and imagine with Froomkin will go there more regularly.

    I just don't not get why people would deprive themselves for the sake of getting back at a blog for a misdeed, which has no effect on HuffPo anyway.  

    Things change, some people don't care to notice. When I was in Spain recently a friend told me that some farmers put out poisoned meat to kill neighbors dogs. I asked why. One of the reasons are that family feuds continue over generations, but if you ask them what started it, they don't remember, they just fester hate and kill dogs that are not even owned by the neighbors.


    Could you be a little more condescending? (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by ChrisO on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 06:16:34 PM EST
    Unlike the Spanish farmers, I remember exactly what went on. And I'm not sure how mu refusal to read a blog equates to "living with anger". I worked hard for Hillary, and saw my efforts undermined by fellow Dems, who seemed not to care how much they divided the party. I knocked on doors and stood in the cold holding signs, then got to read HuffPo bloggers calling Hillary a monster. At what point am I allowed to care about that stuff?

    Does the political stance of a site have any impact at all on whether you visit it, or are you completely indiscriminate in your choices? And by the way. blogs depend on traffic to determine their advertsing rates. Do you really think it has no impact on a blog if people stop going there?

    But perhaps I do take this all too seriously. I mean, it's not like people got emotionally invested in Obama.


    Condescending? (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 06:41:14 PM EST
    Hardly. I am just trying to empathize, but come up short.

    I just don't get why anyone would get so worked up about a pol, in the first place, and then even more mysterious to me why they would stay in the ring long after the fight is over.

    Even stranger, by my assessment the two contenders were nearly identical in their policy although quite different in style.

    I remember exactly what went on.
     Yeah, "went on", is the key. It is over.

    Charisma (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 09:04:01 PM EST
    it obviously makes people say and do dumb things, but it worked in the favor of Hillary Clinton and Obama.  They both used it.  Understandable.  

    I can understand why someone would not visit HuffPo to this day because of sexist and/or uniquely negative coverage of HRC.  If you don't like it and ignore it then things can change.  Knowing people are paying attention to your mistakes is equally good for HuffPo and MSNBC.  Nothing wrong with that.  Re:  Froomkin wherever he was going to go was probably a place with a history of sexism, racism, and general insensitivity and Hillary Hate.  HuffPo at least represents a new media with much greater potential than WaPo.

    My gripe with HuffPo is that it's so bursting with links videos and pics that sometimes it makes my computer go nuts.


    Yeah, But (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 10:43:34 PM EST
    things have changed.

    Totally off topic (none / 0) (#30)
    by sj on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 02:32:34 PM EST
    regarding something I've noticed.  I assume there's a reason that you use "evidentially" rather than "evidently", but until I read you I had never encountered the word "evidentially".

    Is it a regional usage?  They both appear to have the same etymology.


    No (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 02:36:29 PM EST
    I am a terrible speller, and assumed that was how to spell the word. Glad that the two words mean the same thing.

    Not a waste, though :) (none / 0) (#36)
    by sj on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 02:44:58 PM EST
    As I increased my vocabulary.

    Hmm... (none / 0) (#68)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 10:40:54 PM EST
    FWIW, evident(ly) and evidential(ly) don't appear to be synonymous. The meaning of the latter word is not so easily discernible, imo.

    Good idea... (none / 0) (#35)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 02:44:52 PM EST
    El, a commenter said Helen Thomas hadn't closely followed the story of the pre-cooked question that Obama posed to Nico Pitney in a recent press conference. You gave the commenter a seemingly ironic suggestion to: "send Helen Thomas some links that will explain the truth to her". Thanks, I'd also like to see those hot links ;-)

    A Wash (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:33:29 PM EST
    Will Froomkin's harsh criticisms of Obama alienate an Obama-loving HuffPost readership?

    If Obama-loving HuffPost readers desert HuffPo because of Froomkin, many who hated HuffPo because they loved Obama will  return to read Froomkin.

    As I remember, when HuffPo started, it was a collection of people that, although left leaning for the most part, held divergent views, IOW I thought part of Arianna's mission was to mix things up. So even if Froomkin rattles some cages that cut close to Arianna and her personal and business relationships, I do not think that she or anyone else on the staff will be surprised, shocked or indignant about it.

    That is why they hired Froomkin, and it is who he is.

    Pardon my confusion ... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by cymro on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 02:17:52 PM EST
    ... but you seemed to be predicting that the emotions of Huffpost readers would be as "mixed up" as Arianna's mission for the site.

    If Obama-loving HuffPost readers desert HuffPo because of Froomkin, many who hated HuffPo because they loved Obama will return to read Froomkin.

    I had to read this sentence four times before I realized that "they" is supposed to refer to "HuffPo," rather than to "many who hated HuffPo." And re-reading it still evokes confusion. A verbal equivalent of an optical illusion, its meaning shifts even as you read it.

    I guess we're all mixed up now ;-)


    Speaking of "mixed up"... (none / 0) (#27)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 02:23:13 PM EST
    See remark #21 by this same commenter.

    Correction (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 02:27:57 PM EST
    Many who hated huffPo because they loved Hillary and hated Obama will return to read Froomkin. A wash.

    The irrational hatred of HuffPo et al, always seemed ironic to me, but opposing cults do tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater to demarcate battle lines.  Like Bush always said, yer either with us or a'gin us...


    Comment #21 still needs correction ;-) (none / 0) (#38)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 02:49:43 PM EST
    Just as Greenwald is a test (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 03:09:29 PM EST
    of Salon, Froomkin will be a test of...ummm...Arianna.  Or perhaps it's the other way around.  I very much hope that it's not 'once burned, twice shy' for Froomkin and that he keeps on keepin' on, just being himself.

    That's all I care about as well..... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 05:34:43 PM EST
    That Froomkin doesn't change because of the writing venue but instead challenges it.

    Yup. n/t (none / 0) (#57)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 07:25:19 PM EST
    Ha ha (2.00 / 0) (#66)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 09:49:53 AM EST
    Of course not, she knows her place.

    Exactly. She was also more than happy to join gleefully in the Hillary-bashing and stated that her role model as First Lady would be Laura Bush. I'm not criticizing Laura Bush but she is most noteworthy for her ability/desire to stay well in the background and make no public waves.

    And Michelle has run as fast as she can from even the slightest suggestion that she might (gasp!) be a feminist or even a supporter of women's rights. She reduced Hillary--whose "concrete accomplishments" eclipse hers (and most people's) by a staggering amount--to a woman who couldn't control her own husband. Michelle couldn't even bring herself to say that it was a good thing that Barack nominated a woman to the SCOTUS-- heck, even that trashy bimbo Sarah Palin managed to do that.

    So yes, little wonder that Michelle, whose interview at the White House with a reporter focused on her wardrobe and her children, is immune from sexist attacks. There's no percentage in it for the attackers, she doesn't give them any ammunition. Maybe that's a smart move on her part but it isn't what I'd call "gutsy."

    Oh, but I forgot -- Palin winked at people. OMG the horror!! A WINKER!!!

    Wow (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 10:28:42 AM EST
    Off the rails. That is such a distortion that it can only be that you are on some sort of mind altering drugs, or in a cult. Did you know that Michelle is Black? Do you have any idea, memory, of the history of feminism, and how the black woman figured in?

    Michelle is doing fine, and if you don't like the role model she is, well then don't follow it.


    HuffPo (none / 0) (#4)
    by magster on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 12:17:36 PM EST
    Despite the legitimate criticisms of HuffPo, Arianna has certainly built up a large readership that threatens all the "serious" media sources.  Hiring Froomkin helps further that threat.  

    I hope Obama calls on Froomkin first at the next press conference.

    Just to see Dana Milbank's (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:04:22 PM EST
    head explode into a million tiny pieces!

    I think Milbank's head actually (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:26:40 PM EST
    imploded a long time ago - his skull collapsing around the vacuum inside; it was a tiny little implosion, apparently.

    I think Milbank would be a much better fit for HuffPo than Froomkin, but Ariana didn't ask me!


    Huffpo may have (none / 0) (#22)
    by JThomas on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 02:01:15 PM EST
    Obama supporter readers but they specialize in headlines that hammer the President. Today,for instance...they take a WSJ article on healthcare that quotes Rahm on public option..and instead of the softer WSJ headline..they change it to
    ''Obama caves in on Public Option''

    Adrianna has voiced countless times her disagreement with the Obama Treasury dept.
    They go for the eye-catching headline,often at the President expense..just to get traffic.
    It is becoming Drudge-like.
    Froomkin will fit right in at Huffpo if he is critical of the President.

    That's Right (none / 0) (#46)
    by kaleidescope on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 05:52:32 PM EST
    Having a harsh critic of Obama at HuffPo would be like having a harsh critic of Hillary Clinton posting on the front page at TalkLeft. Might cause some tension.

    I would hope that a harsh critic... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by EL seattle on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 06:24:48 PM EST
    ... who can write really, really, well would be welcome at either site, regardless who they're criticizing.

    Word n/t (none / 0) (#52)
    by kaleidescope on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 06:38:44 PM EST
    Caveat (none / 0) (#61)
    by sj on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 11:28:00 AM EST
    I would hope that said harsh criticism is justified and valid.  Especially if it's written really, really well.

    Speaking generally, of course.


    Stand By (Behind) Your Maaan! (none / 0) (#60)
    by Sweet Sue on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 11:26:47 AM EST
    Michelle Obama is also a beautiful woman, but she has earned respect for her intellect and concrete accomplishments.  Is she subject to the same "sexist" attacks from the left that some here accuse Palin's non-fans of making

    Of course not, she knows her place.