How to recognize a "puff piece" and catch the latest talking points. .

[madfloridian]

It is amazing how it is done. Whenever the press refers to the DNC, they refer to its chairman as a "failed" former presidential candidate. They allow him to be called a "Rumsfeldian" incompetent on the TV without counter voice. But today DWT catches the WP's Chris Cillizza doing a real puff piece on the new DLC chairman. Again, as I have pointed out before, they are making it sound like it is actually a part of the party, instead of the think tank it is.

This is an interesting piece at the DWT blog today. The word "lofty" is used to describe the chair of that council. The word "failed" is not used to describe Harold Ford. Words are amazing, aren't they?

The worst part as DWT is pointing out is that they are still using "national security" and "anti-war" words to refer to the concerns held by many "mainstream" Democrats. I will only post two paragraphs from DWT, then post the link to the The Fix.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-to-recognize-puff-piece-chris.html

I kept reading to see who Cillizza would dig up to present the other side of the picture-- about how Ford and the DLC are corporate tools who always sell out the interests of working men and women to whore for political dollars from Big Business. Maybe that got edited out of Cillizza's piece. I doubt it. Oh wait! Maybe this is the other side of the story, fair and balanced bit: "While the DLC has drawn considerable criticism from the liberal blogosphere for advocating so-called Republican lite policies, Ford insisted that the organization is miscast by its Democratic detractors." Does the DLC write that for Cillizza word for word or is his being so in sync with them that they know they don't have to?

And in backing Bush's Iraq plans, Ford uses the old DLC Lieberman strategy of painting mainstream Americans and mainstream Democrats as fringe: "Democrats aren't going to win if we are perceived as the anti-war or anti-national security party." What the DLC, Ford and Chris Cillizza seem to have forgotten is that Harold Ford lost and that real Democrats who challenged Bush for real won. I think the Post needs to re-examine who they have writing about politics for them.

And here is the article by Cillizza.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/01/fords_next_move.html

I will just post a paragraph.

Ford's views as the new DLC chairman are in line with those he put forward during the 2006 Senate race, in which he came within 50,000 votes of pulling off a stunning upset of former Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker. Ford eschewed talk of his last race -- insisting he is focused on the future not the past. That future is almost certain to include another run for office, with many Democrats already touting Ford as the party's best chance to hold the governor's mansion in 2010 when Gov. Phil Bredesen (D) is term-limited out.

We won this election because the people expect us to do something about this war.

[lancdem]

1. Harold Ford was running in a very red state

He did a great job making the race as competitive as it was. The DLC isn't Satan incarnate, for goodness' sake.

[anitar1]

2. So , tell me what the DLC really is. Thank You. n/t

[Greyhound]

6. Think of it as a steering committee that has a wholly pro-corporate agenda

and a disproportional influence on the Party and candidates. They only weigh in on issues that might effect corporate profits and power.

[Stevepol]

3. Isn't it true that TN is being very badly served by the voting machines ...

especially in the Memphis area?

I don't believe TN is as red as the voting machines would have everybody believe. Texas I know is not nearly as red as it seems. If the vote were counted fairly in TX, the Dems would probably be in charge IMO.

I know this was true years ago and the demographics have moved steadily in favor of the Dems. The gerrymandering has helped the Repubs but I really believe the Dems would control TX given a fair vote count, despite the newly re-drawn districts, etc.

[SaveElmer]

4. If you want Harold Ford called a loser...talk to Kos...

He seems to be making it a habit...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/26/0955/31860

[madfloridian]

7. I did not call him a loser at all. I am talking about how the words are used.

Dean is a "failed" candidate who is attacked on TV without anyone taking his side. Ford is in a "lofty" position. So even though both lost, only one is called a loser.

[Nikki Stone1]

5. It's all in the terms you use. Thanks madfloridian!

I watch language and how it is used. You make a really strong point here.

[madfloridian]

8. The word "lofty" says it all. Remember this?

What they did was very wrong. They spoke against a candidate. Their group is not supposed to do that. They called a press conference to do it.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/336

"The 'D' in DLC Doesn't Stand for Dean (David Von Drehle, May 15, 2003, Washington Post)

More than 50 centrist Democrats, including Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner, met here yesterday to plot strategy for the "New Democrat" movement. To help get the ball rolling they read a memo by Al From and Bruce Reed, the chairman and president of the Democratic Leadership Council. The memo dismissed Dean as an elitist liberal from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the party -- "the wing that lost 49 states in two elections, and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one."

It is a shame that the DLC is trying to divide the party along these lines," said Dean spokesman Joe Trippi. "Governor Dean's record as a centrist on health care and balancing the budget speaks for itself.

...""We are increasingly confident that President Bush can be beaten next year, but Dean is not the man to do it," Reed and From wrote. "Most Democrats aren't elitists who think they know better than everyone else."

Words like that should not be forgotten. If they are it will happen to the next person who comes along who crosses them.

[Nikki Stone1]

9. And people wonder why some find the DLC suspect

Keep posting what you find madfloridian. I may not comment on all your posts but I read them.

[madfloridian]

10. Thanks. The word "lofty" blew my mind.

Remember in 2003 how they kept using the word "bold" in regards to Bush? Bold this bold that...bold bold bold.

So now we are going to be lofty.

[Nikki Stone1]

11. Bold for a chickenhawk.

It's all marketing. Repetition, repetition, repetition.

[madfloridian]

12. Harold Ford says the DLC will be the "policy shop" for the 08 nominee.

This is what I have been saying, and what some have argued with me about. He says it straight out. Also is a 501 supposed to be involved in a presidential race?

"In a lengthy interview last week with a handful of reporters, Ford outlined his plans for the DLC -- ranging from its involvement in the 2008 presidential race to its work as the policy shop for the eventual Democratic nominee.

"This is the incubator," Ford said of the DLC, which was founded in 1985 in the wake of Ronald Reagan's landslide reelection. "If you look at the last ten great domestic policy ideas in the last 10-15 years ... 75 percent have come out of this organization."

If they are officially stating they will be the "policy shop" for the nominee, then I can officially watch what their policy advise is without being told I am wrong.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/01/fords_next_move.html

[calimary]

13. How to catch a "puff piece"?

Basically it would be anything written by that foppish embarrassment Richard Wolffe. Still bowing and scraping and accentuating the positive in ANYTHING he writes about this White House or anyone in it. Poor dear just does NOT want to offend. He is UTTERLY useless. The one consistent useless blight on an otherwise perfect Olbermann show. I don't know why Keith keeps having him on.

[madfloridian]

14. I have thought the same thing.

I saw him on some other talk shows lately. Guess he's a go to guy for MSNBC. :hi:

[calimary]

15. I swear, he's such a simpering twit you can smell the eggshells he's

trying to tiptoe around every time he has to go on the air and speak about Lord Voldemort and his Pet Goat, Chimpy.

:eyes:

It was even noted in the Washington Post's Dan Froomkin column - today, I think. He talked about the dick cheney interviews of late - how Wolf Blitzer kicked some sand in cheney's underwear, while Richard Wolffe provided a more "obsequious" face-to-face with cheney:



When Blitzer asked Cheney to respond to criticisms from within the Republican base regarding the pregnancy of his lesbian daughter, Cheney lashed out: "I think, frankly, you're out of line with that question."

Newsweek Interview

In a Newsweek interview, conducted much more obsequiously by Richard Wolffe and published online yesterday, Cheney was not as petulant. But he was equally sure of himself.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/01/29/BL2007012900577_3.html

[wyldwolf]

16. I recognize "puff piece" and "talking points" by the OP of this thread

What the DLC, Ford and Chris Cillizza seem to have forgotten is that Harold Ford lost and that real Democrats who challenged Bush for real won.

In a very red state, an African American came within mere percentage points of defeating a Republican. A prime example of a leftwing talking point is the use of the term "real Democrats." By the reasoning of the quoted line, any Democrat who lost wasn't a "real Democrat." In addition, DLC Democrats who won, like the 16 new House members, and conservative Democrats who won, like Bob Casey, are "real Democrats."

We won this election because the people expect us to do something about this war.

Another leftwing talking point. Exit polling says the #1 issue of voters in the last election was corruption and ethics.

[madfloridian]

17. Do you remember what I said once?

That Rahm and Chuck were putting their own guys in, and then if they won because there was no other Democrat to vote for....they would shout Oh look a centrist won.

You mentioned Casey. Ok, here you go. Rendell told Schumer Casey would win if they picked him to run...but that he probably did not want him because he was so anti-choice. Schumer said they could not worry about such things anymore, no time to make lists and something about the issues. In other words...screw the women in the party. We just want to win.

Rahm did the same thing over and over, and then gloated when 9 of the 35 he picked won.

They have been picking the candidate, gloating if they won Oh looky a centrist won (like Heath Shuler who almost ran as a Republican)...and then lying about the influence of the 50 state plan.

Screw the people, we pick they said. And they did. Most of the ones who won came from the ranks of the grassroots and started with their support. Some got money later from party leaders, some did not.

Now your next step is to call me a liar and ask for proof. Well, I got your proof from hours of research by a DLCer herself, Elaine Kamarck, and from a statistician at DWT.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/921

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1005

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/899

Anyone can go around yelling where's your proof but most know to hush when presented with it.

[wyldwolf]

18. I remember countless ways you spun things, yes.

Rahm and Chuck were putting their own guys in, and then if they won because there was no other Democrat to vote for....they would shout Oh look a centrist won.

But if Rahm and Chuck put their own guys in, and you don't think they're real Democrats, then who are these real Democrats from your OP that won? :shrug:

And like you always do, you completely avoid the substance of my first reply.

[madfloridian]

20. Oh, I did find one thing....

Remember how you guys are always saying the DLC doesn't set policy.

Well. Look at Ford just said about that.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1019

He said they would be involved in the 08 race, and that they would be the policy shop for the 08 candidate. Now that is just about as clear as you get.

You never did answer me...are 501's supposed to be affecting presidential races?

[wyldwolf]

21. Are you telling me Ford wrote something on your journal? LOL!

Surely you don't believe saying that candidates, WHO ARE NOT EVEN ELECTED, will be setting policy for the Democratic party by talking to the DLC.

You never did answer me...are 501's supposed to be affecting presidential races?

That's because you totally ignored the question I asked you first and tried to divert the topic to something irrelevant.

Remember?

You: I think any issues about Hillary, are, if people are honest…not so much about her as about the “inevitability” of her machine. Frankly I like her just fine. I don’t like knowing that she is almost invincible. I would not like that about anyone, so it is not personal about her.

Me: Did you have an issue about the “inevitability” of Howard Dean’s campaign?

You: TPTB took care of that “inevitability”. With precision strikes.

(you then continued with the beginnings of a tirade against the DLC but didn't answer the question.)

Me: OK, but did you have an issue about the “inevitability” of Howard Dean’s campaign?

You: Do you think what the DLC did against Dean was legal or honest? Do you?

(notice, again, you avoid the question.)

Me: Did you have an issue about the “inevitability” of Howard Dean’s campaign? Are you having problems with the question?

You: Are you evading the question about what the DLC did..calling a press conference to attack Dean when they are not a group that is allowed to do that?

(again, you avoid the question. But then accuses ME of avoiding a question!)

Me: The only person evading a question around here is you. Did you have an issue about the “inevitability” of Howard Dean’s campaign?

You: How the DLC defines itself….a 501. They shouldn’t have held a press conference.

Me: Why do you continue to evade the question. A simple yes or no!

You: Was it legal for the DLC to hold a press conference to call Dean unfit?

Me: I can’t wait to post this up on my blog: How the left evades a question.

You: Are you going to post about what the DLC did also? Or just make fun of me…

Me: Can you NOT answer the question? It really is a simple one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3084200

[madfloridian]

22. You are funny, ww.

Now what was the question again?

[wyldwolf]

23. Again, you are avoiding what I wrote about Ford AND the question again.

You're not funny, you're sad.

[madfloridian]

24. And pathetic.

And all the other words you have called me through the years when I present a basic truth you wish to ignore.

[wyldwolf]

25. you shouldn't be so hard on yourself. Maybe if you'd actually stay on topic...

...once in a while... and address the topic of conversation instead of veering off into lala land you wouldn't always sound like you were crying about something.

And hey! Notice you STILL won't answer the question OR explain how Democratic candidates discussing policy with the DLC equates to the DLC setting policy for the party. It's a mystery...

[AtomicKitten]

19. an often overlooked

and rarely mentioned fact because it doesn't fit in with campaign against so-called real Democrats ...

In a very red state, an African American came within mere percentage points of defeating a Republican.