WTF? How Arianna Huffington missed the boat!

[FrenchieCat]

I read her article here....

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/huffpost/20050829/cm_huffpost/006353_200508291107

Russert Watch: This Week’s Lousy Casting
Like any other TV show, Meet the Press rises and falls with the casting. Good casting doesn’t guarantee a good show, but bad casting pretty much guarantees a bad one. And you couldn’t get much worse casting than this Sunday’s Meet the Press. In the first segment, for the second time in three weeks, we had U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, while the second segment featured four retired generals: Wesley Clark, Wayne Downing, Barry McCaffrey and Montgomery Meigs.

If you wanted to come out of this show with a clearer picture of what was going on in Iraq, you were, as they say in the military, S.O.L.
snip
The rest of the show featured the four retired generals, who seemed to enjoy correcting Tim on his questions. (Russert Watch takes no official credit for this, unless we hear otherwise from high-ranking Pentagon officials.)

RUSSERT: Are we winning?
Gen. McCAFFREY: Well, probably the wrong question to be honest, Tim…
And again:

RUSSERT: We in the media are covering the reality. Are we not obligated to do that even though it may not, in fact, "encourage," quote, unquote, the American people to support the war effort?
GEN. MEIGS: Wrong question, Tim.
Anytime, generals, you want to sub at Russert Watch, you are more than welcome.

Meigs went on to blame the bias toward bad news in the media on the fact that reporters “have a very difficult time getting out of that Green Zone.”

Well, why is it they have trouble getting out of the Green Zone? Because of all the booming construction on new schools and electricity plants?

General Meigs also demonstrated that although we may not have enough logic or enough armor, we have plenty of meaningless metaphors:

GEN. MEIGS: Tim, it doesn't matter. We're there. We lanced the boil. We're there…So having pushed Humpty Dumpty off the wall…the Pottery Barn rule applies.
Everybody clear on what’s going on now?

It is utterly amazing that Ms. Huffington reviewed the MTP Sunday show and failed to mention anything that Clark said short of listing his name. I was really stunned that someone with such apparent lack of political astuteness could have a platform from which to speak on the state of our nation. The total "miss" on her part cannot be explained away, or can it? If there are those who think that they can, please I welcome you to provide me with something to go on.

It's bad enough that the national electronic news have been canceled to bring us a 24/7 weather report (which it would seem that local news could do most of, and national news do some), but for Ms. Huffington to make this her contribution, well it's rather pathetic.

As her article lacked substance of any kind, IMO, I was compeled to leave this comment for her (and I rated down the article, as it was obviously the only "right" thing to do):

Ms. Huffington, you missed the boat

Unfortunately, Ms. Huffington frivolously fails to mention the highlight of the MTP "casting" this past Sunday--Gen. Wesley Clark, Former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and a candidate in the Democratic 2004 presidential election.

His MTP appearance came at the heels of an OP-Ed he penned in the Washington Post this Friday. In the OP, Clark suggested that there is an alternate choice in Iraq beyond "staying the course" and "an immediate pull-out"; "last call at correcting the course".

Since Democrats have been accused by the corporate media of failing to provide a plan for Iraq, Clark's call to Bush, in where he gives Bush a workable plan (one Bush would consider if he actually wanted to succeed in Iraq and bring our troops home as soon as possible) if Bush's "reasons" truly are; freedom and democracy. While on MTP, Gen. Clark, unlike the 3 "Stepford" Generals, gave the nation and our leadership pointers on what diplomacy should really entail to salvage the Iraq Mess. Here's the Clark's OP-Ed, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/25/AR2005082501623.html
Transcript and podcast of the MTP Interview here: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9064938/

Of course, the President will not opt for this plan. The advantage to Democrats in offering a doable plan that is ignored, is that when things fall apart, Bush cannot blame Democrats for staying silent as they will have offered a viable alternative to Bush's current course of disaster.

This same Gen. Wes Clark also responded brilliantly when asked about Cindy Sheehan's plight: "I have the deepest sympathy and empathy with Cindy Sheehan. My son served in the Armed Forces and I worried about him every day. And, I carried a burden of guilt about his service, as I am sure most mothers and fathers do. Because, after all, we either encourage them, supported them, or sustained them in making this commitment to their country. My prayers and condolences are with every family who has lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan, or seen him or her come home forever scarred or crippled. And I thank them for their loved ones' service and for their sacrifice. And I understand the depth of their feelings I believe, because every American trusts our leaders to use our men and women in combat only, only, only as a last resort. And in Iraq, this wasn't the case. And we will probably never learn the full array of motives that lead our nation's leaders to take us to this war. I warned at the time that it was "elective"--we didn't have to do it. There wasn't an eminent threat. So why did we? Cindy Sheehan, every mother and father of our service members, and every American has a right to know. It was a strategic blunder to go there. Now America sees it in hindsight. But those in power have responsibilities to do the right thing, and when they don't they should be held accountable. Cindy is doing everything she can to hold them accountable. President Bush should talk to her and tell her the truth."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/08/25/DI2005082501346.html

Why Ms. Huffington would fail to mention this strong Democratic voice's appearance on MTP, as he attempts to "set up" the Iraq issue as a "loss" for the GOP in 2006 and step over the trap laid for Democrats to get pigeonholed into one of two black or white camps of thoughts (stay or go), is a wonder to me. When I hear a Democrat with 4 Stars National Security creds up the "yang yang" stating that if Bush doesn't correct his course soon, then Americans will be justified in demanding a pull out, why would a progressive blogger not want that conversation to be had? Encouraging such would make much more sense than giving us a blurp on MTP's "casting".

I had hoped that Ms. Huffington understood the larger strategy in winning in 2006, and that should would have wanted to promote a strong Democratic voice that offer something out of the usual by providing it needed exposure.

Too bad she missed the boat!
http://tinyurl.com/b8dsu

[Totally Committed]

1. I was under the impression that she was never a fan of Wes's

Something she said on "Real Time" during the primaries (cannot for the life of me remember what it was) gave me that impression.

Well, she's good friends with Soros, so maybe he'll have a positive effect on her at some point on The General's behalf.

I think I'll drop her a line, all the same. :)

TC

[FrenchieCat]

2. Please do....

and "recommend" my comments,if possible. Her blind spot is not helping us any, and she needs to understand that. :eyes:

[howmad1]

17. Why don't we all drop her a line.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

[Crunchy Frog]

3. Sounds like the "Invisible Clark" syndrome.

Just like during the primaries. Too bad, for the most part I really like Arianna. I hate seeing her sharing the same blind spot as so much of the MSM.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Actually, I found it fascinating

based on the substance of what Wes said on the show, that the "stepford" Generals were the ones quoted, to highlight Huffington's point that we are not getting the truth. She must be on vacation, or partied hard the night before, because her approach is totally lacking!

[LittleClarkie]

5. Maybe she didn't actually watch the show

and counted on some underling's summary. Dunno.

Anyway, recommended.

Sometimes I think the Dems are invisible in general. Where is that "liberal" press when you need it?

[FrenchieCat]

6. That's possible, but someone had to have read the transcript.....

considering that some of it constitutes a large portion of the article.

I just am starting to realize what vacuum these various "commentators" live in. I do suspect that some are just as lazy as the corporate asshole pundits we often speak of. I just don't see what excuse Huffington has on this one. It's like the 600 pound gorilla in the room is being ignored, and it doesn't make sense that this should be the case.

Anyhow, thanks Little Clarkie....but when I said "recommend"....
I didn't mean here as much as
"there"----> Too bad she missed the boat! http://tinyurl.com/b8dsu

[Time for change]

7. It's about what I would have expected from her

It seems to me that there's an unspoken rule in the MSM these days not to say anything that will make Bush look too bad or a Democrat too good.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. She's not mainstream and she's very anti-Bush

so I doubt that's the reason. It's more likely that she simply has a bias against him, perhaps because he's military, and she deals with it by ignoring his existence and thereby sparing herself from having to deal with the cognitive dissonance that would result from actually listening to him.

[Totally Committed]

11. Didn't she also used to be a RW Republican talking head?

Call me suspicious, but that's a pretty big U-Turn. I'm giving it a few more years until I believe her political re-alignment 100%. She hated Clinton. Now she hates Bush. Maybe she just hates whoever gets elected... or has a problem with authority?

TC

[Time for change]

14. I feel the same way about her

She was a full blooded Republican until they started ostracizing her because they found out that her husband was gay.

Then she made a 180 degree turn.

I read a book by her where she expressed some very liberal ideas (can't remember the name of it) and noted her previous Republican history. It was not very well written IMO, and I was totally unclear from reading the book as to what changed her mind so quickly.

[Crunchy Frog]

22. I saw her talk about her conversion (or maybe read something)

and what I recall is that she basically had been kind of naively idealistic about conservatism, as far as believing that they genuinely cared about people and social problems, and just had a different approach to dealing with them. I think she saw the light at some conference or something where she saw the utter lack of compassion that the conservatives actually had.

I recall a few years ago, her talking alot about issues of poverty, especially child poverty. She seemed to be genuinely impassioned about the issue.

I've always found her accounts of her conversion completely credible and have admired her for speaking out the way she has. I hope I'm not wrong about her.

[Totally Committed]

25. Crunchy, coming from someone I respect, trust, and LIKE

as much as I do you... that makes all the difference!

I have never heard her speak of her conversion, so she's always come across as sort of fake or disingenuous. Being as cyncical as I have become about politics, politicians, and the people who opine professionally on those things has made me so distrustful. That never used to be part of my nature. I used to always assume the best about people until they proved otherwise. Now, I wear my skepticism like an outer skin. Anyway, your post had made me feel a lot better about her and toward her. Thank you for posting that.

My e-mail to her will have a different "voice" now, I'm sure.

Thanks again!

TC

[Time for change]

30. That makes sense to me

If you knew her to show genuine concern about social problems when she was a conservative, that's another story.

But that doesn't change the fact that her story about the Meet the Press interviews was a poor excuse for journalism

[Crunchy Frog]

21. Yeah, she was.

I've always felt that her conversion was real though. Maybe I'm just too generous. I haven't really read any of her books, but I've followed her some on TV and in her editorials. She's said some things that have really resonated with me. I've always felt she was genuine, but I've been known to be wrong before.

Some of the best people out there though are converts from the dark side. David Brock in particular.

[Totally Committed]

28. There are also converts to the other side...

Look at Christopher Hitchens! He used to be quite Liberal (and more sober) back "in the day", and now he's this pitiful drunk Bush apologist. He fell into a glass of whiskey and never managed to crawl back out, but in his drunken haze, he found the Bushies. What happened there? I'd LOVE to know. If he ever dries out enough to write THAT book, I will buy a copy in a slpit second!

And then, there's Ron Silver. He was one of the most outspoken Liberal "Hollywood elite" entertainers. 9/11 happened and -- BOOM! -- he's a raging RW asshole. The Patriot Act gives him a hard-on, and so does Bush's "tough-guy" persona. I think there's a homo-erotic element to this conversion that has gone unexamined, but I could be wrong. I just don't see how someone can go to bed one night with such outspoken Liberal ideals in their hearts, and wake up the next morning, ready to do a deal with the devil. -- And visa versa.

But, crunchy, you are right about Brock, his conversion to our side was complete and righteous, so Arianna will get the benefit of the doubt from me.

TC

[sendero]

26. Didn't Wes...

.... align himself with Republicans at one time?

Really, nobody who has read Ms Huffington could possibly believe she's a closet puke, she rips them a new one 10 times better than most blogs.

I love Wes Clark but maybe she doesn't. That is her right, and it's not like she actually said something bad about him, she just didn't cover him.

If that's a crime, you can indict 90% of the media, including the left.

[Time for change]

15. But I believe that the unwritten rule that I described above applies to

"liberals" and even partisan anti-Bush liberals who appear on the MSM as well.

[Gloria]

8. I was disappointed, too...It was good she focused on that

phony Ambassador, the one who thinks Iraq can have a "living document" (but we can't), but she really did miss the meat of the discussion as offered by Clark...

[Mr Rabble]

9. Her point may have been to bash MTP.

She clearly shares our disdain for Russert. Acknowledging Wes Clark seems to be outside the scope of her bashfest.

[Donna Zen]

12. Something strange:

Before Huffington opened her blog for business, she asked Wes Clark to contribute his writing.

Maybe she's ticked that the General is at TPMCafe? I don't think that she's small-minded, but it just popped into my head, because if one really hates the chimp, then you give the Dem on the panel whatever kudos you can. Well, that would seem the smart move from my perspective.

[fujiyama]

13. I noticed in the article

she says nothing about Clark.

She seems more upset about MTP and Tim Russert in general rather than Clark in particular.

[DefenseLawyer]

16. Honestly, I think only a huge Clark supporter

would have read that article as a slap at Clark. Not being a huge Clark supporter, I didn't find his MTP performance particularly spectacular. Not that I thought he was bad, and certainly he wasn't a stumbling yes-man like the other three, but I wasn't wowed by his performance either. I got from the whole article that the show was bad and didn't add much to our understanding of the military situation in Iraq.

[FrenchieCat]

19. I understand what you are saying, and that's fine.....

But it ain't all about Clark, but rather what Clark said what I am talking about.

What she ignored or failed to recognize is very important step that Democrats must take to handle what may be the most important issue in winning or losing the 2006 election, IMO.

Please reread this part that I had written to her, and had included in my OP:

Why Ms. Huffington would fail to mention this strong Democratic voice's appearance on MTP, as he attempts to "set up" the Iraq issue as a "loss" for the GOP in 2006 and step over the trap laid for Democrats to get pigeonholed into one of two black or white camps of thoughts (stay or go), is a wonder to me. When I hear a Democrat with 4 Stars National Security creds up the "yang yang" stating that if Bush doesn't correct his course soon, then Americans will be justified in demanding a pull out, why would a progressive blogger not want that conversation to be had? Encouraging such would make much more sense than giving us a blurp on MTP's "casting".

[Totally Committed]

27. What Frenchie says is true,

Huffington, whether we like her or not, or trust her or not, is now, by virtue of her Blog, a political force. She has a responsibility to see beyond her own prejudices (whatever they may be) and present the larger picture.

What Wes said on MTP was definitely an example of "big picture" thinking and ideas. Like it or him, or not, Arianna (imo) has a responsiility to her readers to at least acknowlege those ideas and encourage her readers to either read them for themselves, or comment on them in a balanced way on her Blog.

If she was an "honest broker" of truly progressive ideas and ideals, as she claims to be, her feelings about MTP, Tim Russert, 3 administration blow-hard apologist Generals, or Wes himself, would not get in the way of highlighting the genuine information that program presented.

TC

[MADem]

29. I read it as a slap at RUSSERT

The Generals "correct" TimmyTwoShoes on his questions. And what does Timmy do? NADA!!!!!!

Funny how he only grows fangs when a Dean or a Kerry are sitting across the table.

Timmy is a tool--he has destroyed that program, which used to involve interviews and a panel from the actual PRESS, who asked tough questions.

I concur with your assessment of the entire evolution.

[autorank]

18. Frenchie, I'm all about what you did. You cannot fail to notice CLARK.

I've heard some people complain because he's not a publicity hog. Well, the guy is the real thing, a courteous, very bright, very tough individual with a huge list of accomplishments.

No, he's not a media asshole practiced in the art of shouting down others or being so ridiculous that he is a constant attention drain. Yes he's presidential.

A few more months, there's going to be a "maturity and intelligence" bandwagon. We're already on it!

[FrenchieCat]

20. A man after my own heart you are, Autorank.....

and boasting my hometown team as an Avatar to Boot!

Your all-around astuteness astounds me, my brother! :hi:

[autorank]

23. The Oakland Raiders are "America's Team"

:hi:

People are going to be begging Clark by '08. We've seen Kerry retire from the field; Edwards regroup; LIEberman fall off any body's radar; Evan Bayh fail to poll 1%; and Hillary act just like LIEberman (the rank and file won't forget and the "3rd way" is totally discredited).

There's going to be one way out of Iraq, the environmental disaster, and the dis-union of our country: a candidate with brains ,experience, courage, vision, unifying ideas, and one who can win in every section of the country. From Chicago to Little Rock, New York to California, and Michigan to Arizona, Clark will prevail!

[WCGreen]

24. Arianna Huffington is a professional personality....

She really has nothing to say and quite frankly, most of the threads and posts on DU are far superior to what she has spouts....

Sorry....

Her conversion is admirable only in the fact that she can meld herself into an opposition personality at the drop of the hat. And, I might add, just to get air time........

She is good at that....

The political equivalent of Paris Hilton