Rick Perlstein fellates Josh Marshall

In his weekend link dump, Kuff fellates American Prospect fellating Zionist Josh Marshall. No, really; the word "Israel" is nowhere in the story. Perlstein also doesn't call Marshall out when he claims his audience is "left-wing," even though Marshall earlier admits that he's hated on the "socialist left." (A left-neoliberal audience is NOT "left-wing," Josh.

He's even more hated on the anti-Zionist left. That, in turn, is a mix of funny/ironic/sad because, in his Twitter feed, Perlstein himself seems at least moderately anti-Zionist, certainly on the current war. I don't know what Josh has written about the war itself, but before it, he was a full-on blank-check Zionist.

So, to riff on Perlstein? Yeah, he's had success, fiscally etc. So has Daily Kos, without Markos bigfooting the site in the foreground anymore.

Has either one had POLITICAL success other than as new font of online #BlueAnon tribalism?

Hell, no.

It's no wonder that Kuff, himself a BlueAnon tribalist who continues to maintain radio silence on Gaza, including Texas' own DPS busting up pro-Palestinian protestors at Texas universities, loved this piece. 

In response on Twitter, Perlstein gave me the old "this is the institutional framework, the duopoly is it" spiel on that. I told him that, as a member of the print media, I mentioned third parties from time to time. On Zionism, he admitted that "others were that bad, too."

As for Perlstein? Sadly, I thought he was better than this. And, I think I'll pass on his latest book when it comes it. It sounds like little more than a suaver Dan. Froomkin.

Jon Chait STOPS fellating Obama, becomes bigger hack

Exactly two months ago, political insider Jonathan Chait wrote a big steaming pile of blather with this headline: "The Case for Obama: Why He Is a Great President. Yes, Great."

It included such dreck as this:

Obama can boast a record of accomplishment that bests any president since Roosevelt, and has fewer demerits on his record than any of them, including Roosevelt. 

And dreck that is indeed.

Says who?

Not just me, but ... Jon Chait!

Exactly two months later, he writes, with this headline: "Why is Obama Caving on Taxes?" and proceeds to excoriate Dear Leader up one side and down the other.

That includes this closing paragraph:

Obama may think his conciliatory approach has helped avoid economic chaos. Instead, he is courting it.

That's a Loooong ways away from "great," isn't it?

Well, the second Chait is right. But, refusing to let even 10 percent of that thought into a political puff piece two months ago (Note: Obama's biggest achievement, allegedly, Obamacare, actually is Nancy Pelosi's doing) shows just how much a hack he is.

But, really, he's a representative of a type. In days ahead (whether the House approves the "fiscal slope" deal or not) you'll see others like Chait, neoliberal but not quite as conservative as Dear Leader, and still clueless as to how bad an executive leader he is, similarly burn rubber and strip clutches at the strenuousness of their change-of-direction rethinking about O'Bummer.

I'll bet we soon smell similar burned-out clutches from Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, Markos Moulitsas at Daily Kos, Steven Benen at Washington Monthly, and Kevin Drum at Mother Jones, among others.

In order of hackery, Kos is right there with Chait, as is Benen, a consistent Democratic Party fluffer. Marshall at times ranks higher on the snootiness level, though.

And, even IF the House GOP approves this ... a definite if ... this is only a two-month Band-Aid. Why?  The "great" Dear Leader didn't get a debt ceiling long-term fix as part of the deal.

In any case, let's see exactly sort of Ricky Ricardo "splaining" they do.

More on Palestine Papers and Israeli & TPM hypocrisy

Truthout notes they spell out not the terms of the peace process but the terms of surrender.

Waving the white flag was Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, speaking for the PA. Dictating the terms of surrender were various Israeli governments, from Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni to Benyamin Netanyahu. And pushing along the process with humiliating prods were American negotiators like Condoleezza Rice and George Mitchell.

Contra semi-Zionists like Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, Israelis from both sides of the Israeli bipartisan foreign policy establishment were "dictating," as noted with Kadima leader Lipni listed too.

As Livni said in May 2008 when she asked Palestinian negotiators why they insisted on a maximum of two percentage points of the West Bank to be given to Israel in any settlement, "Why do you insist on 98 percent? Why not 92 percent? ... My question is why you cannot have a state that represents most of your aspirations?"

Marshall claims I "don't understand." No, Josh, after an exchange of e-mails, on Palestinian issues, I now understand you all too well. I know you're not ignorant. Therefore, you're a willing dupe; while I won't (yet) label you a Zionist, you've earned the semi-Zionist tag.

Here's more on the Tzipi Livni whom I allegedly don't understand:

As Livni said in November 2007, when Palestinian negotiators threw up their hands in frustration at the impossibility of dealing with their Israeli counterparts and said they'd just fight for one state, "There is also two states, with one on the other side of the Jordan." Livni also said that Israel was making its fair share of negotiations, in particular reprising the Palestinian "historic compromise" of 1988 in which it recognized Israel. "We did not want to say that there is a 'Palestinian people," she said. Israeli negotiators were clearly willing to cross theretofore uncrossable lines at Annapolis.

And, as I told you, Josh, any "linkage" comments Lipni has made recently are solely in fear of what's happening in Egypt:

Indeed, Israel and the PA still pine for a negotiated outcome, even as they conflict on the particulars of borders, refugees and Jerusalem, but it's probably too late. That's why, as Cairo is awash in tear gas, aflame with Mubarak's Molotov cocktails and teeming with military tanks massing on its streets, Israel is asking its regional allies to tone down criticism of the Mubarak government. And that's why Netanyahu told his ministers, "We are closely monitoring events in Egypt and the region and are making efforts to preserve its security and stability." He knows that a dictatorial Egypt guarding Israel's southern flank is the best insurance for continuing the occupation or coddling the PA into selling out its people.

And, speaking of selling out, were Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian Authority figures ultimately looking for nothing more than a bigger fig leaf for a semi-state? Truthout suggests that, too.

The Truthout story also makes clear that Israel wants to hold onto any settlement that isolates East Jerusalem. And, an East Jerusalem nearly surrounded by a mix of West Jerusalem and Israeli settlements would be no fig leaf at all as a Palestinian capital.

Besides writing nothing about the Palestine papers, Josh hasn't written a huge amount about the Muslim Brotherhood in the current Egypt situation. Coincidence? Probably not.

Tzipi Livni, full of PR smoke

Oh, NOOOOOWWWWW Kadima's leader and Israel's former foreign minister is wanting to do more, including "linkage," to a genuine two-state solution in the Middle East.

Rather than kicking Mahmoud Abbas in the nuts like she did a year ago, per Al Jazeera's Palestine papers.

What this is is the "fear of Egypt's future" fallout starting to hit Israel.

Meanwhile, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo is on full bipartisan foreign policy establishment suck-up mode on this one, saying she's been saying the same thing in public for years.

He still said that, with a straight face, AFTER I e-mailed him links and comments from two Guardian stories based on the Palestine papers.

From one of the Guardian stories:

In an emotional – and apparently humiliating – outburst to Barack Obama's Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, in Washington in October 2009, the senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat complained that the Ramallah-based Palestinian leadership wasn't even being offered a "figleaf". ...

(W)hen Palestinian leaders balked at the prospect of an entirely demilitarised state, Livni made clear where the negotiating power lay. In May 2008, Erekat asked (Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister): "Short of your jet fighters in my sky and your army on my territory, can I choose where I secure external defence?"

"No," Livni replied. "In order to create your state you have to agree in advance with Israel – you choose not to have the right of choice afterwards."

And more ...

Here’s Lipni, again from the Guardian, favoring “transfer:”

In several areas, (then-Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni) pressed for Israeli Arab citizens to be moved into a Palestinian state in a land-swap deal, raising the spectre of "transfer" - in other words, moving Palestinians from one state to another without consent. The issue is controversial in Israel and backed in its wholesale form by rightwing nationalists such as the Yisrael Beiteinu party of the foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman.

Seems pretty clear, Josh, if you want to open your eyes.

That said, Josh is, if not a Zionist, highly uncritical of Israel's current bipartisan foreign policy establishment. Also, he seems to have little love last for Al Jazeera. He's not given it and its coverage Mention No. 1 during the current Egypt crisis. And, on further reflection, I don't think he did a single blog post about the Palestine papers. For lack of a better word or phrase, I'm creating the new tag of "semi-Zionism."

Josh Marshall: Neolib, Obamiac

Nice to see that some things don't change just because a new year hits the calendars.

The neoliberal proprietor of Talking Points Memo claims "I haven't seen any convincing evidence" Obama wants to cut Social Security.

Dude, who appointed the Catfood Commission? The same guy who hasn't said he saw anything wrong with the advance leaking by its co-chairs. The same guy who hasn't rejected the report of its majority. The same guy who had no problem letting the GOP de-electrify the "third rail," and even helped.

Howard Dean flunky doesn't speak for me

Levana Layendecker, the communications director of Democracy for America, a group that's the remnants of Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, claims that Obama is still the progressives' man. In fact, Dean himself says that.

Well, Howie Dean built his "progressive cred" on a gay marriage bill in Vermont that he wasn't that thrilled about until it landed on his desk and he knew he'd have a shitstorm if he vetoed it. Other than that, he is bupkis as far as true liberalism.

Apparently Howie and his mouthpiece don't pay attention to places like Truthout and its new open letter to the "left establishment."

Now, that said, Howie probably DOES speak for Talking Points Memo; given a staff-generated piece that long, without any blog-editorializing to go along with it, could it be otherwise?

TPM & Josh Marshall are double doofus on WikiLeaks

Per FAIR, I now now that a Talking Points Memo post on the top five surprises out of the cables not only was about unsurprising information, but also, rather than looking directly at the cables, instead looked directly at the New York Times' interpretation of them ... once again, TPM acts like the mainstream media's New Media adjutant.

This is an updated and amended version of my original post on this issue.

Josh Marshall, publisher of the blog and sometimes news site Talking Points Memo, has in the past, shown himself to be almost as much a mainstream media mogul as the proprietors of the New York Times, etc. Posting White House slide shows, using multiple anonymous sources in stories are just two manifestations of that.

Now, we get his his right hand man David Kurtz's take, in one post, on the Wikileaks cable leaks. (Yes, I didn't check the post's byline originally; but, I figured that, with its breathlessness, it was Josh's. Instead, it's Kurtz's breathlessness busted by my the second time. That said, Josh is still the publisher. He could be talking more to Kurtz.) That's followed by Josh sticking his Napoleonic hand inside his publisher's military vest.

The most naive post? Kurtz's "five biggest surprises" one.

The idea that Sunni Arab states fear Iran's nuke program so much they want us to take Iran out? Hinted at in news stories years ago.

That the State Department ordered spying on foreign diplomats? In the wake of the UN discussion on Iraq in late 2002-early 2003, facts to this end were uncovered and reported five years ago. It's just continued since then, obviously.

That Iran supplied North Korea with missiles? News, sure. Surprise? Not really. And, also, per FAIR, not necessarily true, either! And thus, per the FAIR story, I've also busted Kurtz for blindly trusting the New York Times as a secondary source.

Here is the actual cable.

Russia said that during its presentations in Moscow and its comments thus far during the current talks, the U.S. has discussed the BM-25 as an existing system. Russia questioned the basis for this assumption and asked for any facts the U.S. had to provide its existence such as launches, photos, etc. For Russia, the BM-25 is a mysterious missile. North Korea has not conducted any tests of this missile, but the U.S. has said that North Korea transferred 19 of these missiles to Iran. It is hard for Russia to follow the logic trail on this.

A bit different than the NYT's breathless "linkage" take and TPM's gullible acceptance.

Ditto on Iran using the cover of the Red Crescent to smuggle material into battle sites. No real surprise.

That the U.S. diplomatic corps relies on blog-ready gossip items? It has for decades. We probably could learn boatloads from a country like Great Britain.

Next, Marshall notes that WikiLeaks may have intended the cables dump as an attack on U.S. diplomacy.

NOoooooo! Next up, TPM gets an IgNoble Prize.

Of course, the now commenter-unfriendly TPM allows no comments on either story.

What's even worse in a way is how Marshall comes off as a pedantic small-college professor, or cyber-small town newspaper editor:

We've given explicit marching orders to our editors and reporters not to get distracted by the 'meta' part of the wikileaks story and just focus on the details unearthed.

First, we're covering all the details we can find. So that puts some real limits on how much we can credibly criticize the way these cables came to light. I'm also not sure we would have made different decisions than, say, The New York Times, if we'd been given the opportunity to report out the cables in advance of their release. And of course we here at TPM like every other news organization routinely file FOIA requests on the reasoning that it's in the public interest to get as much as possible of the inner workings of government exposed to the public.

What he's saying is, "Folks, look at me give you a peek under the hood about how to run an online news site!"

Oy.

An actual surprise? Per McClatchy, the total clusterfuck of the 2009 coup in Honduras?

An even bigger actual surprise? At least some Chinese officials are OK with a Seoul-led reunified Korea.

And, yet more actual surprises, courtesy Juan Cole. They include that John Kerry wanted Israel to return the Golan Heights to Syria, that Pakistan's chief of staff, Gen. Kayani, considered a coup against President Zardari and more.

TPM #fail.

Josh Marshall, neolib dupe and doofus on Wikileaks

Josh Marshall, publisher of the blog and sometimes news site Talking Points Memo, has in the past, shown himself to be almost as much a mainstream media mogul as the proprietors of the New York Times, etc. Posting White House slide shows, using multiple anonymous sources in stories are just two manifestations of that.

Now, we get his his right hand man David Kurtz's take, in one post, on the Wikileaks cable leaks. (Yes, I didn't check the post's byline originally; but, I figured that, with its breathlessness, it was Josh's. Instead, it's Kurtz's breathlessness busted by my the second time. That said, Josh is still the publisher. He could be talking more to Kurtz.) That's followed by Josh sticking his Napoleonic hand inside his publisher's military vest.

The most naive post? Kurtz's "five biggest surprises" one.

The idea that Sunni Arab states fear Iran's nuke program so much they want us to take Iran out? Hinted at in news stories years ago.

That the State Department ordered spying on foreign diplomats? In the wake of the UN discussion on Iraq in late 2002-early 2003, facts to this end were uncovered and reported five years ago. It's just continued since then, obviously.

That Iran supplied North Korea with missiles? News, sure. Surprise? Not really. And, also, per FAIR, not necessarily true, either! And thus, per the FAIR story, I've also busted Kurtz for blindly trusting the New York Times as a secondary source.

Ditto on Iran using the cover of the Red Crescent to smuggle material into battle sites.

That the U.S. diplomatic corps relies on blog-ready gossip items? It has for decades. We probably could learn boatloads from a country like Great Britain.

Next, Marshall notes that WikiLeaks may have intended the cables dump as an attack on U.S. diplomacy.

NOoooooo! Next up, TPM gets an IgNoble Prize.

Of course, the now commenter-unfriendly TPM allows no comments on either story.

What's even worse in a way is how Marshall comes off as a pedantic small-college professor, or cyber-small town newspaper editor:

We've given explicit marching orders to our editors and reporters not to get distracted by the 'meta' part of the wikileaks story and just focus on the details unearthed.

First, we're covering all the details we can find. So that puts some real limits on how much we can credibly criticize the way these cables came to light. I'm also not sure we would have made different decisions than, say, The New York Times, if we'd been given the opportunity to report out the cables in advance of their release. And of course we here at TPM like every other news organization routinely file FOIA requests on the reasoning that it's in the public interest to get as much as possible of the inner workings of government exposed to the public.

What he's saying is, "Folks, look at me give you a peek under the hood about how to run an online news site!"

Oy.

An actual surprise? Per McClatchy, the total clusterfuck of the 2009 coup in Honduras?

An even bigger actual surprise? At least some Chinese officials are OK with a Seoul-led reunified Korea.

Updated Dec. 1.

The depths of the Obama enthusiasm gap grow

It's so bad now (take note, Josh Marshall, David Kurtz and other "adult" TPM-heads), that Obama can't even say STFU himself to the whiny liberal base anymore, because it won't register. Instead, he is now delegating STFU duties to Uncle Joe Biden.

Much more at Salon, where Joan Walsh tries to defend the STFU noise.

Meanwhile, Obama himself is busy fighting the hypocrisy gap; this one is even more self-inflicted.

More at Glenn Greenwald.

And, let's not forget the Obama stupidity gap!

Is this all too much idealism? I think not.

As I told a friend, in response to my linking of this, and the new Rolling Stone story, on Facebook:

I would at least be referring to those not dumb enough to conduct compromises in public (the stimulus) before the time to actually compromise. I would be referring to those dumb enough to not STILL negotiate with the GOP a year later (health care) after having been burned on the stimulus. I would be referring to those who don't believe what even Bush didn't claim, that they have the right to execute Americans without trial (the Yemeni-American cleric). None of this is "uncompromising," Andy, and more and more people besides just me are tired of Team Obama saying "stop whining." The man sold out to Wall Street 2 years ago for campaign dinero; finally, more people are waking up.

As far as a "wash," in the late 19th century, it took 20-plus years of even more active third-party votes before progressivism became part of the political mainstream. If it takes that today, it takes it.

Sadly, the Democrats, if they lose Congress, or if Obama loses in 2012, will take away the wrong lessons from this, though.

Josh Marshall, enabler of the two-party duopoly

And, of a fair amount of neoliberalism.

Technically, he may be in New York, not DC, but with "grow up kids" pablum like this decrying progressives frustrated enough with Obamacrats to stay home from the polls this fall, the Talking Points Memo publisher richly deserves "inside the Beltway" opprobrium.

Here's what I e-mailed Josh:

Josh, I know you've got an American history Ph.D.

Therefore, you surely know the popularity of the Greenback Labor, Populist and other parties in the Plains and West in the late 19th century. They were popular enough to elect governors, members of Congress, and state legislators, and win presidential electoral votes.

In fact, it's quite arguable they **forced** the Democrats to nominate Bryan in 1896 and therefore forced progressive issues into the political mainstream.

Therefore, telling people to, in essence, get a grip, rather than accepting that, **like the spouse of an alcoholic,** they are tired of **enabling** Democrats, is historically shortsighted, as well as perhaps needing "a grip" yourself.

I tell people, instead of giving up, vote Green. Or Socialist. Make your discontent active, not passive.

And, I need to update this.

Sept. 28: Yes, as Josh himself notifies me by Twitter, he didn't write either this post, or another.

joshtpm @SocraticGadfly & you cite two posts I didn't even write. Great attention to detail!

True, Josh; David Kurtz did.

But, Josh, you're the publisher. By analogy with a newspaper, you, not just as an individual, but as an institution, don't disagree with Kurtz's take, or the tenor of it, if you don't directly say so. Yes, he wrote the equivalent of a column, not an editorial; nonetheless, as I tweeted back, you've not disavowed the sentiments, or even nuanced them. (And I don't I stand alone in that observation.

And, the historical background argument still stands.

Otherwise, I read less of TPM than I used to, since it's clear you have a certain "take" on issues, that you're in love with the Obama White House, and with things like eliminating reader blogs, that's not going to change.

The slide shows? The mainstream media pattern of anonymous quotes from inside the White House? Josh, those are all you, baby. And, again, I'm not the only person to note that.

In short, you're like a more intellectual, more inside-the-beltway version of what Daily Kos was like 4-5 years ago.

Ugh. BIG ugh.

I guess I need to read you less, and something like FDL more. And, tell others to do the same.

And, Josh, perhaps you could tell David that rather than criticize people who are expressing WHY they have an "enthusiasm gap," he needs to look in the mirror for being an enabler of that problem, too.

Also, Josh, Obama himself is fighting the enthusiasm gap. And, the hypocrisy gap.

Hypocrisy alert: Tony the Pony on TPM

A nonleftist, neolib former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, appears on a nonleftist, neolib blog, Talking Points Memo, to advise a nonleftist, neolib president, Barack Obama, whom TPM calls "left-leaning."

Man, Josh Marshall and his minions go more in the tank for Obama every day.

Want more proof? David Kurtz swallows Obama's PR line on not privatizing Social Security with a puff piece blog quote of him without any comment.

I told him:

If you really believe what he said today, you’re gullible. It’s his commission, and he stacked it with a mix of conservatives and neolibs who want to whack Social Security.

Sure, Obama may say he opposes **privatizing** it, and just maybe he does. But, not a word out of him about trimming benefits, raising the retirement age to 70, etc.

Don’t give him a puff blog post for a puff comment.

Why TPM will always be an Obamiac blog

Here's the skinny on Talking Points Memo publisher Josh Marshall's latest case of Obama suck-up-itis:

(O)nce you get past the simple fact that the terrible unemployment rate has a lot to do with the Dems' awful electoral prospects, it's very hard to make any definitive statements about why they're struggling. There are numerous theories, many of which are plausible, but very few of which have a really solid factual basis behind them. So everybody picks the theory that validates their assumptions.

Dems and Obama's poll numbers are so bad because ...

Republicans: Terrible policies and he's probably a Muslim.

Right Democrats: No CEOs in the administration. And why does he keep getting into the black thing?

Down-the-Line Obamaites: Economy's bad. Nothing he could do. Give it a rest.

Left Democrats: He wasn't liberal or tough enough and me and my eight friends are deeply disillusioned.

To his credit, Marshall has posted one reader's e-mail response. Nonetheless, this level of flippancy from a man who continues to post White House slide shows and who, like the mainstream media, relies on anonymous administration sources, isn't surprising.

Now, also to be fair, TPM won't be 100 percent Obamiac. And, it may not even be as Obamiac as Washington Monthly under Steve Benen. But, it will remain enough that way, no, too much that way.

Confusing Obama cause and effect at TPM

Josh Marshall seems to want to blame the lack of a stronger stimulus package on Congressional Democrats (with the Senate GOP in the background, of course) and NOT President Obama.

Of course, facts are different. Obama's clueless and soon-to-be-departing Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, started compromising away the stimulus store long before the proper time for compromises was at hand.

Since then, the only "initiative" has been continued extensions of unemployment benefits (until now). Thinks like an infrastructure repair bill haven't even come close to coming out of the White House.

Meanwhile, per the overall tenor of Josh's comments, the White House let go of keeping a firm hand on the "narrative" of this issue long ago, too.

Abroad, it probably could have "swapped" support, at least lip support, for additional stimulus spending by first, backing what some Eurozone countries have done already on financial reform rather than trying to pretend the US was at the lead, and second, citing what China had actually done in the way of stimulus spending.

Neoliberal blech at TPM

Talking Points Memo proprietor touts this weak-tea defense of Obama against true liberals on his handling of Deepwater Horizon by Theda Skocpol. I write back:

Any non-Gang Green enviro group worth its salt 18 months ago was saying how bad, relatively, Kenny Boy Salazar was as Interior nominee.

The recent Rolling Stone article points out just how bad MMS continued to be under Salazar/Obama.

Greenwald had more. (In part because I and others told him to look at Salazar and more.)

And, don’t forget Obama’s hands deep in Exelon’s pockets; hence, all his nuke plant guarantees.

Finally, did Skocpol actually listen to Obama’s excuse of a speech, mixed of platitudes and the lack of tough specifics?

Or Robert Reich’s latest post (at TPM)?

Finally, her “do not support” leading to “rabid Right” comment is like the spouse of an alcoholic and “enabling.”

The only way Progressivism got on the plate of either major party a century ago was vigorous third-party movements in the late 19th century.

Obama is now sweating BP bullets

And, short of impounding BP bank assets, realizing his administration is currently up an oil gusher without a paddle.

Of course, this is part of how Minerals Management Service is so effed up.

But, the information about MMS's nefariousness about BushCo made numerous headlines. Why Obama assumed it was really regulating offshore drilling, I don't know.

This, as I have said before, ultimately becomes an issue ofhis competency and management. And, so far, that's a fairly big fail.

Hey, neolib Obama-hugger Josh Marshall ... remember when you called me a "#fail" by e-mail response to my criticism of you saying Obama was on top of this 3 weeks ago?

Well, he's a #fail and so are you! Sadly for the Louisiana coast.

Shock me that Obama is thin-skinned

Even with the White House press corps.

I mean, his pledge to transparency was bullshit long before he was elected, but you have to be deliberate and intense on stiffing the press to the point of Obama personally talking with the stenographers even less than Shrub Bush did!

And, no, as that lengthy and in-depth Politico story above makes clear, this isn't just Rahm Emanuel's no-prisoners style as White House chief of staff. Nor is it Robert Gibbs' distance as WH press secretary.

Rather, it's The One himself, from whence the attitude toward the press starts. Sarcastic, snide and sneering.

And, some of other things in the story, like the WH stiffing pool photographers and instead cranking out staff pix and videos?

Hey, Talking Points Memo and Josh Marshall? You dumb-ass suckers. Politico is talking about YOU, the way you fawningly plaster that shit up as slideshows about once a week.

Former Politico staffer Michael Calderone, now at Yahoo, confirms the bare bones of the Politico story, too.

And Steve Clemons weighs in with how some of this relates to highly centralized, somewhat micromanaging leadership by The One himself, sounding more like Jimmy Carter by the day at times.

I'm sure the ranks of "see no evil" Obamiacs will continue to dwindle.

Anonymous sourcing: ain't just the MSM

Glenn Greenwald rightly bemoans what seems to be a worsening of the use of anonymous sourcing in inside-the-Beltway reporting.

But, as I e-mailed him, this isn't just a "mainstream media" phenomenon.

I’ll hold out Talking Points Memo as a prime example, since it developed from “just a blog” into doing its own news reporting.

A couple of months ago, for example (sorry, don’t have link), one of its staff reported the “latest” on Obama’s heath care push, with a couple of different angles from inside the WH. Nothing close to national security involved, of course.

But... At least five or six different anonymously sourced comments.

Well, I was, to be blunt, disgusted to some degree when I saw that, and I think a few other TPM regular readers were too. That said, neither the reporter nor Josh Marshall commented in response, said we’re sorry, etc.

I’ll venture a guess that as “new media” tries to get more and more into reporting, not just commentary, it will do more of the same selling itself out.

So, let’s not say this is just an MSM problem.

Talking Points Memo further deepens “old media”-style reporting

With a post like this, progressive blog/online news source TPM’s latest news (newishness) about intra-Democratic national healthcare discussions, you’re about to Washington Post/New York Times level on the use of anonymous sources.

We have, in just a few hundred words:

But according to sources briefed on White House-Senate health care negotiations … According to a source briefed on White House-Senate health care negotiations … According to a separate source close to both parties … On the morning of the meeting, anonymous sources … "Reid actually asked Schumer to make the pitch," the first source said. … Multiple sources--including Schumer himself--now dispute this interpretation.

That’s SIX uses of anonymous sources in 750 words.

I guess the “new media” ain’t so new, after all, when it gets to a certain point inside the Beltway, eh?

Talking Points Memo become more Old Media

The news side of Talking Points Memo, writing yesterday about whether President Barack Obama supports or opposes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s latest effort on a public option on national healthcare uses an anonymous source.

And, today, reporting on the Progressive Change Campaign Committee's effort to push Obama on the public option, it does the same thing, while also making itself part of the story, and seeming to be in a rush to "break news."

Is TPM getting to be like "old media" as it decides that's the only way it can play inside-the-Beltway reporting? Anonymous sources, becoming part of the story, and getting in a rush to "break" stories?

‘New media’ committing ‘old media’ errors?

The news side of Talking Points Memo, writing about whether President Barack Obama supports or opposes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s latest effort on a public option on national healthcare uses an anonymous source from the White House. There’s no national security involved, or even close to it, so I don’t want to see Josh Marshall complain so much about anonymous sourcing in the future.