Facts evasion

Succinctly, by laying out the facts, Bob Somerby explained how the so-called liberal blogosphere aka SCLB has transformed into Village idiots:

SEEING AN SS PROPOSAL HALF EMPTY: If you round 28 percent off to “half,” you may be misleading the voters. And you may be squandering a large advantage you enjoyed with the mainstream press. That seems to be what Obama did with the recent ad which is “ad-watched” in today’s New York Times. We highlight two key words from the text of the ad—two words which seem to be hard to defend, two words which were wholly unnecessary:

OBAMA AD: I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message. A broken economy. Failing banks. Unstable markets. Families struggling. To protect us in retirement, Social Security has never been more important. But John McCain has voted three times in favor of privatizing Social Security. McCain says, “I campaigned in support of President Bush’s proposal.” Cutting benefits in half. Risking Social Security on the stock market. The Bush-McCain privatization plan. Can you really afford more of the same?

Aarrgh. The Obama campaign can’t seem to defend two key words: “in half.” And Obama has been criticized for making a similar claim on the stump. (For two posts from FactCheck.org, click here and then click here.) Because they stuck those two words in that ad, the Obama campaign has been widely assailed. For one example, see this column by the Post’s Ruth Marcus.

Last week, Marcus—like many mainstream journalists—was hammering McCain, quite hard, for his long string of “whoppers.” In this column, Marcus says Obama has started to even things up.

A bit of background on the issue discussed in Obama’s ad:

Marcus is part of the DC establishment’s center-left contingent. If she votes, she will almost surely vote for Obama, not for the saintly McCain. But by the time of Campaign 2000, virtually everyone in the Village was affirming the virtue of private accounts; Gore was hammered, remarkably widely and remarkably stupidly, for challenging Bush’s proposal. (Link below.)

To this day, Marcus tends to buy her cohort’s sky-is-falling approach to SS; when she writes about the issue, she tends to be ardent—and murky. Her column included some outright nonsense, such as her passing complaint about Obama’s use of “incendiary language” (that is, the word “privatization”). And the column ended up in the weeds; Marcus isn’t very good at clarifying this issue. But her basic complaint was basically accurate, a point you may not have understood from work churned by some on your side.

This childish post by Josh Marshall is a case in point. Much of the short post is incoherent; much of it is loud and childish. (“It’s apparently a big lie,” Josh childishly snarks, as he offers a reinvented account of what Obama has actually said.) But his whole post ignores a central point—Obama and the Obama campaign seem to have misstated a key, central fact. On our side, we tend to get extremely upset when McCain does this sort of thing.

Is this what we all signed up for when the liberal web was born? Were we secretly seeking the chance to bleat and cry and ignore central points? Did we want to be like Sean Hannity? If so, enjoy Josh’s post.

Hey! Look over there! Pay no attention to the title of Marcus' column, "Closing the Whopper Gap," which examines Obama's false ad claim. The SCLB via CDS-sufferer Josh Marshall overlooks Obama's "rank misrepresentation" and his "stooping to the kind of scare tactics he once derided" so that WKJM can meander about the Social Security privatization quadrangle obscuring those two points among others.

And that is Josh's point--change the subject and disregard the substance of a criticism--a Village-like maneuver as if a child obedient to the defense of The One denies the fact that Da-Da is misleading.

Just as right-wing media have defended King George and the conservative movement for decades with blatant lies, juvenile rants, and sleight of hand, the SCLB rush to the aid of their Precious with misdirection, an evasion of the facts, and on other occasions, to spread faux racial smears and misogyny. That's not what I "signed up for when the liberal web was born."

The problem for the latter "progressive" cohort is that their appeals to a critical voting bloc--Democratic women--comes delivered with a slap in the face and dismissive snarls. Still! Anglachel handily addressed the latest sexist insult (read her entire post for details) and articulated what the Blog Boyz seem to be incapable of grasping. With emphasis added:

When Democratic women say "The Obama camp has run a sexist, mysogynistic campaign," we are told we're wrong, no such thing, there was not any sexism there, except maybe some from Tweety. When Democratic women say, "No, it's not his race, it's his lack of commitment to the programs that matter to us," we are told that, no, we're all just racist bitches, and that it's our fault if he doesn't win.

What does it mean to electoral outcomes if what we Democratic women are saying is simply true? That there is too much encouragement of and reliance upon misogyny as a campaign tactic? That our objections to this candidate really are based on rational economic self-interest, and are not due to his race?

Using shame (shame of being female, shame of being racist) rather than offering benefit is a tactic that may intimidate some, and perhaps win some over who would rather be part of the pack that attacks than one who is attacked, but mostly it engenders resentment. It is nothing on which political solidarity can be founded. Hasn't the Democratic Party learned that it is not enough to run on "I'm not [insert opponent here]"? That was a losing argument against Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. Shouting "The other party is worse!" does nothing to address the weaknesses and failings of our own. Put on top of that a very public contempt for the concerns of a large and (until now) unswervingly loyal constituency and this is a recipie [sic] for long term, nearly permanent loss of electoral power.

I'll never vote Republican, but for the first time in my life, I feel no desire to vote Democrat, either.

I've written reams of analysis of why the current election is shaping up the way it has and I may be wrong about my judgments on those things, but I know my own thoughts. When I say I won't vote for Obama after the revolting campaign he has run and because he doesn't have anything substantive to back him up, I mean exactly those two things, nothing more, nothing less.

It's just the truth.

I couldn't agree more. As a lesbian, I include another unpleasant contradiction over Obama's campaign affiliation with homophobes. Again! How dumb does he think LGBTQ folks are?

Does Obama think we're too ignorant to notice how the underside of the bus looks?

Good thing you rarely see the SCLB touting that they are members of the "reality-based community." With Obama's campaign, reality must have become too mind-boggling to handle.

POSTSCRIPT: The "Precious" was coined by Anglachel and "WKJM" (Whoever Kidnapped Josh Marshall) was originally minted by Bob Somerby and recognized by the senior fellows of the mighty Corrente building.

Speaking of Corrente, in response to Anglachel's spot-on post, Lambert asks again:

How can a “movement” built on misogyny and false charges of racism be considered “progressive”?

Riddle me that, Batman.

Go read Lambert

Tax time. Too busy to give adequate attention to The RealSpiel.

So go read Lambert on the latest contrived attack on Hillary Clinton related to Obama's gaffe from the hack who kidnapped Josh Marshall.

And then from the ultimate CDS sufferer, the King of the Orange Sippy Cup, "too funny":

The Clintons have no compunction about ripping the Democratic party apart and destroying the career of Barack Obama if it means they might yet win.

Oh, the drama of angry pissypants. Someone order a giant-sized bottle of smelling salts for the Kid. Keep digging through the horse dung, Orange Boyz. Maybe there's a Unity Pony in there somewhere. But I doubt it. And that stink... won't wash off.

Respect my sexist attitude!

That's the Boy Blogz media darthling Josh Marshall's unofficial slogan freshly-minted during his latest sexist episode of CDS and taken to the woodshed by Melissa McEwan:

Are you fucking kidding me, Josh Marshall? Because I quite honestly can't believe that a person who identifies as a progressive and has two brain cells still knocking together doesn't understand why it's problematic, to put it charitably, to frame Hillary Clinton pushing her male chief strategist from power as "gelding" him.

I find it difficult to believe that a man of your intelligence doesn't know that "to geld" means to castrate, and I find it similarly difficult to believe that a man of your experience doesn't know that powerful women are routinely cast as castrating bitches, and I further yet find it difficult to believe, in light of your constant reminders that you've spent a good part of your adult life defending the Clintons, that you are totally unaware of the existence of "hilarious" novelty items like the Hillary Clinton nutcracker. So where exactly is the disconnect, Josh, that allows you to use such disgusting language in reference to a sitting senator and presidential candidate? Or any woman, for that matter.

With "allies" like these...

And with that, Melissa lists 75 episodes from the "Hillary Sexism Watch." Click onward.

Obama blog bias unveiled

Josh Marshall took the plunge changing TPM to the official non-official Obama Talking Points Memo.

BTD at TalkLeft provided the details. The gist:

By doing an attack video on Hillary Clinton, TPM demonstrates that not only has it become an Obama site, it is one of the most virulent and unfair of such sites.

Did Josh feel a thrill go up his leg?

Obama Talking Points Memo

Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler has written at length about the misleading commentary authored or endorsed by Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo. If you search Somerby's archive, you can find examples of Josh's lackluster performances and blatant wankery over the years. Also, check this archive at TalkLeft, where Armando (Big Tent Democrat), an Obama supporter, demonstrates how to blog fairly about both Clinton and Obama.

Two recent examples via Somerby's passing observation yesterday, when taken together, document TPM's favoritism of Obama and bias toward Clinton deceitfully honed. A caveat: Josh can endorse whomever he wants. What is problematic is how he presents his "reporting" as factually correct, when actually he distorts information to fit his point of view. Such misleading tactics one would expect from the sleazy wingnutosphere. Evidently, the liberal blogosphere has its own share of propagandists.

Monday, Josh tasked the notoriously fallacious Bill Kristol for citing Newsmax in his column that stated Obama had attended Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial service:

Bill Kristol forgets that fact-checking is important, even in a hit piece.

Later on Monday, Greg Sargent posted an update to the story:

In his latest column, Bill Kristol falsely claimed -- based on reporting by Newsmax, of all things -- that Obama had attended Trinity Church last July 22nd, when Wright blamed blamed [sic] the “arrogance” of the “United States of White America” for much global suffering.

The Obama campaign responded with an aggressive fact-check last night, saying that, no, in fact Obama was not at the service.

Somerby recalled that last month on the morning of February 25, Marshall used an unsubstantiated allegation from right-wing Matt Drudge as a source to smear the Clinton campaign as if fact-checking isn't important for him, but it is for Bill Kristol. Interesting double standard, no?

He just couldn't help himself in citing the spurious Mr. Drudge. The story was too juicy to hold up, insinuating that the Clinton camp was out to get Obama, reinforcing errant gossip that Barack might be a Muslim. He didn't "want to take Drudge as a fact witness for anything." But, waah! Waah! He just had to do it. Who or what made him post a Matt Drudge allegation?

Why it was those darn Clintons running "a terribly inept" campaign and the pressure of inquiring readers who were to blame. Not Josh. Heaven forbid.

He "pushed and pushed"--Bless his heart!--to get what he needed, a Clinton campaign response before he posted the specious Drudge allegation. When the Clinton camp didn't meet his idea of what he "knows" campaigns should say to unequivocally deny an allegation, to disavow that they had anything to do with the Obama dressed in Muslim garb photo, Josh plunged ahead to spread a Matt Drudge "hit piece" as if he was a victim of circumstance.

Of course, none of TPM's readers have any idea how Josh phrased his inquiry to the Clinton campaign before he posted, That Drudge Headline, because he didn't tell them. He didn't publish his line of questioning for transparency's sake--we're to trust his unfailing integrity--because he knows his readers don't come to TPM "to get insights into our editorial process." Odd, that he mentioned that last point.

Without verifying sources for hard evidence, he linked to the Greg Sargent's 9:50 AM posting of the Obama campaign's "David Plouffe condemning the Hillary campaign and saying it's part of a 'disturbing pattern' from Camp Hillary." Yet, no high-level Obama staffers offered "any evidence or info as to what happened beyond what appeared on Drudge."

Later on February 25 at 2:36 PM, Greg Sargent posted:

On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson strongly denied any official campaign role in pushing the photo of Obama in a turban and Somali garb.

Drudge reported this morning that Clinton staffers had "circulated" the photo. He didn't say who circulated it, what level of Clinton staffer had circulated it, or to whom it had been circulated. Drudge is the sole source for this email's existence. Nonetheless, the media has been all over the story today.

Josh couldn't wait to post a Matt Drudge "hit piece" on Clinton but what did Josh say in his afternoon follow-up to his rancid "reporting"?

On a conference call, Howard Wolfson just made pretty much the kind of 'loosely categorical' statement about the Obama picture that I said in the post below that we were surprised not to have heard. Here's our report on the conference call.

Not a hint of how Wolfson "strongly denied any official campaign role"--the type of explanation Josh expected for a campaign to provide when he "pushed and pushed"--and he described the denial as "loosely categorical." He merely offered a link to "our report on the conference call" without correcting his original erroneous "report."

Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler is right:

Incredibly, Marshall eventually linked to Sargent’s story—while pretending that Wolfson’s statement didn’t go beyond what had already been said. Not being stable-boys ourselves, we won’t bother to scoop Josh’s piles; you can limn his posts for yourself. But go ahead: Read his original post, then his update, then read his link to Sargent’s report. There’s nothing new here, the moo-cow said, as he linked to a report which opened like this:

“On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson strongly denied any official campaign role in pushing the photo of Obama in a turban and Somali garb.”

If you didn’t click on Josh’s link, you wouldn’t know how absurd his characterization was. But certain types have long played this game. The assumption: You rubes won’t bother to click on that link! Therefore, you won’t see that what has been said is pure, Grade A, moo-cow nonsense.

Fact-checking is important for Bill Kristol, "even in a hit piece." The right-wing, fact-challenged Newsmax isn't a reliable news source as Media Matters have repeatedly documented. The same is true about Matt Drudge.

But it's OK if you're Josh Marshall to use Clinton-hating, right-wing Drudge as a source without checking facts. Josh called his post "reporting." That's a quaint term for sophistry.

When the dubious wingnut Bill Kristol doesn't get his facts straight, using a proven unreliable source, Josh and Greg pounced on the "hit piece." Why? Kristol had linked Obama with the Rev. Wright controversy. Damage control had flung into full throttle.

Does Josh commit to the same level of diligence when the Democratic candidate is Hillary? No. Not as "a generally subtle, practitioner of Clinton Derangement Syndrome." He's been silent on the sexist crap. And that leaves plenty of doubt about his objectivity when his misleading spin and the "slide-toward-propaganda" thoroughly undermines and discredits "Josh Marshall’s once-superlative work."

Tell me why I ought to ever consider TPM a credible blog on news stories in the future?

Shilling for Obama must pay well. Isn't it time for a name change? Obama Talking Points Memo sounds about right.

Hillary Clinton never said Obama was a Muslim

A moo-cow edition for all you night owls


I've wanted to previously address this matter but the issue keeps resurrecting like a nocturnal vampire baring its fangs with new bites to add.

Did Sen. Hillary Clinton hedge about whether Barack Obama is a Muslim? No, she didn't. But our notoriously-biased mainstream punditheads continue to raise the issue as if she did. The venerable Media Matters of America provided the heavy-lifting by checking the facts. So follow along from the latest outbreak of misleading smears to the initial hit job [emphasis added in bold]:

Matthews again accused Clinton of fostering doubt about Obama's religion

During the March 5 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews claimed that the question -- "Is he, in fact, the religion he says he is?" -- is part of a "tough trio of attacks" Sen. Hillary Clinton is using against Sen. Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential race. As Media Matters for America has noted, Matthews has repeatedly mischaracterized Clinton's response during a CBS 60 Minutes interview to the question of whether she "believe[d] that Senator Obama is a Muslim." Contrary to Matthews' March 5 claim, her first three words in response to the question were, "Of course not." [3/6/08]

Wash. Post's Meyerson asserted Clinton "hemm[ed] and haw[ed]" over Obama's religion
In his March 6 Washington Post column, Harold Meyerson characterized Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's remarks about Sen. Barack Obama's religion during the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes as "hemming and hawing." Meyerson wrote: "[P]arty leaders must make clear to the candidates that some attacks and innuendos should be out of bounds -- such as Clinton's hemming and hawing on '60 Minutes' over whether Obama really is Christian." In fact, CBS correspondent Steve Kroft asked Clinton whether she believes Obama is a Muslim, and contrary to Meyerson's characterization, during the interview, Clinton repeatedly made clear that she believes Obama is not a Muslim. Meyerson did not note that Clinton's first three words in response to Kroft's question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- were, "Of course not. "Nor did his column mention that during the exchange, Clinton equated the false rumors about Obama's religion to false rumors about her: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Meyerson has previously, and falsely, accused Clinton of "play[ing] the race card." As Media Matters for America documented, in a February blog post on the American Prospect website Meyerson described a phone call that a friend of his in Los Angeles received from what Meyerson described as "a high-decibel gentleman with a very exaggerated, old style -- Amos 'n Andy, in fact -- black pattern of speech, singing the praises of Barack Obama." Without any evidence to support his accusation or any indication that he had attempted to contact the Clinton campaign -- which subsequently "called the allegation "outrageous and baseless" and "completely false" -- Meyerson pronounced the phone call "a Clinton ploy against Obama."

Although the original Meyerson post was taken down, Meyerson posted a second item on the phone call, headlined "The Race Card in L.A., Part 2." Meyerson wrote:

My post occasioned some indignation when I surmised the call came from operatives working for some organization that supported Hillary Clinton. I'm sure it didn't come from the Clinton campaign itself, and I have no reason to think the campaign knew about it.

In asserting he had "surmised the call came from operatives working for some organization that supported" Clinton, Meyerson completely misrepresented his accusation in the previous post, in which he blamed Clinton herself in the headline and referred to the call as a "Clinton ploy" and a "Clinton Dirty Trick." [3/6/08]

Fineman called Clinton's comments on Obama's religion "positively Nixonian"

During MSNBC's coverage of the Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island primaries on March 4, Hardball host Chris Matthews stated that when asked on the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes whether she believed Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim, "Hillary Clinton took the longest time to answer Steve Kroft's question the other night. I don't know whether to read too much into it, but everybody has, that she played a bit of a game here." Newsweek editor Howard Fineman later said that Clinton's answer was "positively Nixonian in its pauses and innuendos." He added, "Look at it and look at it carefully. There was nothing accidental about it." Fineman also said, "Hillary was brilliantly Machiavellian in sounding indignant while at the same time raising doubts about Obama."

In fact, Clinton's first three words in response to Kroft's question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- were, "Of course not." Additionally, Clinton made clear at the end of the exchange with Kroft that she was likening the rumors about Obama's religion to false rumors about her: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

During the March 3 edition of Hardball, Matthews asserted that Clinton's campaign is "[g]oing after" Obama "in this Muslim issue" and claimed that she "g[ave] up a clear chance to dismiss these bad stories being pushed by bad people, that he's not the religion he is, clearly to try to disturb people." Matthews added: "She had a clear opportunity on 60 Minutes to clear that up, and she didn't take it." Later in the program, he played a clip of Clinton's 60 Minutes interview in which the end of Clinton's answer was cropped so it did not include a remark in which she clearly stated that she did not believe that Obama was a Muslim and added that she too had been "the target of so many ridiculous rumors." Matthews then repeatedly highlighted only part of Clinton's comments to suggest that she had left Obama's religious beliefs in doubt. [3/5/08]

Vieira falsely suggested Clinton didn't say Obama is not a Muslim

During an interview with Sen. Hillary Clinton on the March 5 edition of NBC's Today, co-host Meredith Vieira asked Clinton: "On 60 Minutes over the weekend, you were asked about Senator Obama and whether you believed he was a Muslim, and you said, and I'm quoting now, 'I take him on the basis of what he says. There isn't any reason to doubt that, as far as I know.' Why not just say simply, 'No'?"

In fact, Clinton's first three words in response to CBS correspondent Steve Kroft's question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- were, "Of course not." Additionally, when Kroft again asked, "You don't believe that he's a Muslim?" Clinton said: "No. No. Why would I?" Further, Clinton made clear at the end of the exchange with Kroft that she was likening the rumors about Obama's religion to false rumors about her: "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

Responding to Vieira's question on Today, Clinton said: "Well, I went on to say that I've been the subject of a lot of rumors that, you know, have been totally made up, and, you know, this is a scurrilous rumor and it should be, you know, obviously rejected out of hand. I don't know what more Senator Obama or his campaign or any of us can say. You know, it shouldn't be believed." [3/5/08]

On Hardball and in Politico, Roger Simon misrepresented Clinton's comments on Obama's religion

On the March 3 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Politico chief political columnist Roger Simon falsely suggested that "the last thing [Sen. Hillary Clinton] said" on the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes when asked whether she believed Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim was: "No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know." But that was not the "last thing" she said on the question. Clinton went on to say, "I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets ... smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time." Additionally, during the same Hardball discussion, Bloomberg News columnist Margaret Carlson claimed that Clinton "doesn't have enough sympathy to say: Of course he's [Obama] not a Muslim." In fact, Clinton's initial response to CBS News correspondent Steve Kroft's first question on 60 Minutes -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- was: "Of course not. ... [T]here is no basis for that" [emphasis added].

The next day, in his March 4 Politico column, headlined "Clinton plays victim and victimizer," Simon highlighted the phrase, "as far as I know," from Clinton's 60 Minutes interview and asked: "Doesn't that just continue a smear?" [3/4/08]

Matthews truncated Clinton's comments, ignored others to repeatedly suggest she gave up "chance to dismiss" Obama rumors

During the March 3 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asserted that Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign is "[g]oing after" Sen. Barack Obama "in this Muslim issue" and claimed that she "g[ave] up a clear chance to dismiss these bad stories being pushed by bad people, that he's not the religion he is, clearly to try to disturb people." Matthews added: "She had a clear opportunity on 60 Minutes to clear that up, and she didn't take it." Later in the program, Matthews played a clip of Clinton's 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft in which the end of Clinton's answer was cropped such that it did not include a remark in which she clearly stated that she did not believe that Obama was a Muslim and added that she too had been "the target of ridiculous rumors." Matthews then repeatedly highlighted only part of Clinton's comments to suggest that she had left Obama's religious beliefs in doubt.

While discussing Clinton's comments with MSNBC's Joe Scarborough and Norah O'Donnell, Matthews aired a clip of the 60 Minutes interview in which Clinton responded to three questions about whether she believed Obama was a Muslim. In response to Kroft's first question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- Clinton replied: "Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that." Matthews ignored the fact that Clinton said, "Of course not," instead choosing to highlight an answer from Clinton that was truncated in the clip he played. In Kroft's third question, he again asked: "You don't believe that he's a Muslim -- or implying, right?" Clinton's full answer was: "No. No. Why would I? There's no -- [n]o, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know. ... Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time." However, on Hardball, the clip ended after Clinton said "as far as I know," which Matthews then used to suggest that Clinton was leaving Obama's faith in doubt. [3/4/08]

Drudge headline distorted Clinton comments to suggest she said "Obama Not Muslim 'As Far As I Know' ... "

On March 3, the Drudge Report linked to online news portal Breitbart.tv video footage from the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes under the headline "Hillary: Obama Not Muslim 'As Far As I Know'...," falsely suggesting that Sen. Hillary Clinton characterized the issue of Sen. Barack Obama's religion as unresolved. In fact, she did the opposite. Correspondent Steve Kroft first asked Clinton, "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" to which Clinton replied, "Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that." Kroft then asked, "And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim," to which Clinton replied, "Right. Right." Only after Kroft went on to ask, "You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying, right?," did Clinton respond, "No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know" [emphasis added].

Following Clinton's response to Kroft's third query on the subject, Kroft said, "It's just scurrilous --" to which Clinton responded, "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time." [3/3/08]

Thank goodness, we have A-List bloggers disputing the nonsense spread by the Hillary-hating mainstream press, right? Wrong. Not when moo-cows like Josh Marshall rely on GOP operative Matt Drudge for his sourcing. As Bob Somerby explained on Feb. 26, 2008, a response to the accusation that the Clinton camp circulated a photo of Obama in Muslim garb:

WE’RE ALL MATT DRUDGE NOW: We began planning this site in late 1997, for reasons we can no longer clearly recall. At the time, the noxious and inane Matt Drudge was king of the political web—an entity which barely existed.

Ten years later, a vast “liberal web” has come into being. But, by now, we’re all Matt Drudge, as Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum made quite clear in yesterday’s posts. Drudge says it—and our “intellectual leaders” repeat it. Life thus becomes very easy.

But then, as Grover Norquist once said: “Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are very unpleasant. But when they've been ‘fixed,’ then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful.”

The issue, of course, involves Drudge’s pronouncement about that photograph of Obama [in Muslim garb]. Mooing contentedly, Drum observed that Drudge’s post was “ambiguous—who distributed the photo—who did it go to?” Indeed, Drum’s caveat put matters mildly; as any advanced fifth grader could see, Drudge didn’t say that “Clinton staffers” had sent the photo in question to him; he simply said that unnamed Clinton staffers had “circulated” the photo (where, he didn’t say), and he quoted an accompanying e-mail message—without saying who the e-mail had gone to. Do you mind if we draw two simple conclusions—conclusions so simple a child could reach them? First: In all likelihood, no Clinton staffer sent the photo to Drudge, or the brilliant fellow would have said that they had. Second: For all anyone knows, some Clinton staffer sent the photo to a friend in Obama’s campaign, and the photo and e-mail proceeded from there. Is that what happened? We have no idea. But then, no one but Drudge has the slightest idea what facts (if any) lay behind his report—which didn’t keep a pair of moo-cows from mooing the Drudge story forward.

It would be hard to find words low enough to capture the work of these two cheerful bovines. Even as of this morning, Drum still hadn’t updated his post to include Howard Wolfson’s conference call, in which (quoting Greg Sargent at TPM ), Wolfson “strongly denied any official campaign role in pushing the photo of Obama.” Having mooed his affirmation of Drudge, Moo-cow Kevin withdrew from the scene, failing to comment on Wolfson’s statement. And if anything, Moo-cow Marshall played things even dumber—as he often does in these latter days. As he so often does now, Marshall rushed into print with a premature judgment (the Clinton camp surely did it!), then back-pedaled in a rambling, barely-coherent “update” (same link)—a non-clarification clarification of a type he has come to master. Incredibly, Marshall eventually linked to Sargent’s story—while pretending that Wolfson’s statement didn’t go beyond what had already been said. Not being stable-boys ourselves, we won’t bother to scoop Josh’s piles; you can limn his posts for yourself. But go ahead: Read his original post, then his update, then read his link to Sargent’s report. There’s nothing new here, the moo-cow said, as he linked to a report which opened like this:

“On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson strongly denied any official campaign role in pushing the photo of Obama in a turban and Somali garb.”

If you didn’t click on Josh’s link, you wouldn’t know how absurd his characterization was. But certain types have long played this game. The assumption: You rubes won’t bother to click on that link! Therefore, you won’t see that what has been said is pure, Grade A, moo-cow nonsense.

It would be hard to find words sad enough to capture these posts by these two cheerful cows. In 2002 and 2003, these “very serious” fellows were giving assent to an oncoming war with Iraq. (Each of the pipe-puffers flipped, or semi-flipped, in early March 2003.) But as of today, they’re even more content. Today, they just wait for Drudge to declaim. Then, they type this: What Drudge said!

Readers, are you happy? We’re all Matt Drudge now! Drudge says it—and we agree to believe it! Meanwhile, Keith goes on the air to complain about what those *ss-holes at SNL said. We’re all cheerful moo-cows now, given this level of leadership.

And what did moo-cow Josh Marshall have to say about Hillary's denial on 60 Minutes that Obama was a Muslim? He insinuated that "there is some iffy hedging" and bellowed, "For me it's on the edge. And I find it surprising she would leave it on the edge. Why the 'as far as I know' line? On the other hand, at other points, she seems pretty unequivocal. But mainly I'm curious to hear what you think."

Well, I've thought about it, researched it, and so has Media Matters: It's ridiculous to conclude that Clinton was "iffy" about her denial that Obama is a Muslim.

I purposely left in the redundancy of Hillary's quotes supplied by Media Matters so others reading the snips won't suddenly feel the urge to morph into "cheerful bovines" happy to repeat the nonsense of Josh, Matt Drudge, Tweety, and the other Village Idiots.

UPDATE: Add another via Media Matters:

NY Times' Herbert misrepresented Clinton's comments about Obama's religion, asserted they were "one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign"

In his March 8 New York Times column, Bob Herbert misrepresented recent remarks Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made in response to a question about Sen. Barack Obama's religion and asserted that they represented "one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date." Herbert wrote, "[60 Minutes correspondent Steve] Kroft asked Senator Clinton if she believed that Senator Obama is a Muslim. In one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date, Senator Clinton replied: 'No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.' " But as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, during the interview on the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, Clinton repeatedly made clear that she believes Obama is not a Muslim. Indeed, Clinton's first comment in response to Kroft's initial question on the subject -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- was, "Of course not."

Our fetid press corps writes the sleaziest things on a daily basis but the rubes fall for their tripe all the time. People will read what they wish to fit their biases in defiance of evidence. Too many suffer from Clinton Derangment Syndrome, bless their hearts.