If you have "no place to go," come here!

Elizabeth Drew

herb the verb's picture

Elizabeth Drew does her own "angling", you decide what for:

"But Washington has been taking in Obama's victory in its own idiosyncratic way. Hostesses are angling to be the first to entertain the Obamas at their first private dinner in Washington.

Elite private schools that fifty years ago would have barred them because of their race are competing for the Obama daughters. The intense jockeying for jobs, and the fevered speculation about who will get them, preoccupy the town. John Kerry's open lobbying for months for the job of secretary of state has been deemed by many as unseemly; he's been crowding Obama. Yes, Kerry helped Obama at crucial moments, but the times are too serious, and the stakes for Obama's success too high, for the concept of "owing" to determine the filling of cabinet positions. A certain candidate for a key cabinet position has called someone close to the Obamas three times each day."

(With big hat tip to Vastleft for the initial link through Arriana's vanity site.)

The entire article is one long, sloppy wet kiss to Obama, "officials in Chicago" and "someones close to the Obamas". This is one-sided, anonymously-sourced, gossip-whoring of the worst, and most obvious, kind. Is there a quote or reference to her having talked to people in the Clinton camp? McCain camp? Kerry camp? etc.? Evidence she even talked to anyone? She could have made this entire story up in her head as there isn't a single named or quoted source in the entire article!

And why would that be? Maybe because if she tried to get more than one side, or used exact quotes from named sources, it might spoil the narratives that are so much easier to spin out of whole cloth and (maybe) a 10 minute whirl through the ole Rolodex for treadworn, "anonymous pal" sources.

Count the narratives in that article, they are plugged in like a programmer plugs in software modules.

Drama? Thy name is Clinton.
Aging lion? Thy name is Kennedy
Senile grumpy dupe? Thy name is McCain.
Incompetent elitist self-aggrandizer? Thy name is Kerry.
Tough? Thy name is Emanuel.
Wise leader? Thy name is Pelosi.
Overmatched Courtier? Thy name is Reid
Shameless jobseeker? Thy name is (unnamed actually but easily fingered) Richardson
All things wise, bright and wonderful, where you tread angels have blessed? Thy name is Obama.
Lazy hack? Thy name is Drew.

In Visual Basic that would look something like

With Narratives=


There is neither an original thought, original reporting, or even original narrative in the entire article, but there is an original plot twist.

As to the "substance", Obama's courtiers should be careful with this "originally it wasn't offered, they made that up" bullshit (if indeed they are saying this), because it leads to only one inescapable conclusion: Obama got played by those wiley Clintons. The Perfect one looks like the dupe in this plot twist so prepare to see the moonwalk.

Updated (minor tweaking "cashing checks written kind").

No votes yet


vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

The two candidates were so similar, who cares if top blogs are one-sided and dishonest?

Though I didn't see the previous version, the update warms the heart. Thanks!

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

Yeah, the whole "object-oriented" thing, it's powerful, and yet at the same time lazy!

A MoDo column could just as easily as Drew's be broken down into it's modules for future columns. Common themes could be set up as modules with properties based on what it is.

Derangement, depending on if .Clinton or .Obama or .Democrat or .Liberal would have separate properties or subroutines

With Derangement.Obama =

With Derangement.Clinton =

To go all meta, things like the Washington Post or New York Times (or the Bush Administration, or even "America" for that matter) are just bloatware, filled with these kinds of modules.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Though I'm an old-school BASIC programmer, so "with" clauses are new to me. The things you learn at Corrente!

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Who's doing the derangement -- the ones who think he's a messiah or the ones who worry about the ones who think he's the messiah?

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

If you will.

In standard parlance, "Derangement" is the program that is running. A variable "Messiah" would have an input value like Messiah(1) comes back TRUE (IS the Messiah) where Messiah(0) comes back FALSE (is NOT the Messiah but people think he is). It's a boolean variable.

With a little work, Drew's column could be easily written in Versailles Basic code. A very minor bit of coding!

With Application.TeamObamaSpin(5) 'sets Team Obama spin to level 5,
' this sets variables for the following subroutines at highest level

With Derangement.Clinton 'runs the CDS set of subroutines

With Awesome.Obama(5) 'runs sub how awesome is Obama? Awesomest!


The Awful.Obama routines are in the initial stages of development but should be out for Xmas 2010.

This is Versailes Basic we are talking about after all.

admin's picture
Submitted by admin on

Why Drew? Why not MoDo? Or Broderella? Or WKJM, for that matter....

If you can program in PHP, I'd put it up on the site. I think it would garner a little glory...

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

It's primarily about lazy, broken, MSM "journalists" (that's what she calls herself and is billed as, she is a "pro", not just a "blogger") with Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
Is there Palace Intrigue? Has a palace existed without it? Will disgruntled palace courtiers make noises to a lazy hack journalist who will agree to anonymously parrot their back-stabbings? See Judith Miller, Nick Kristof or Joe Klein. It's the world's "second" oldest profession.

My previous version suggested what "position" Drew was angling for, I felt it was better writing to leave that up to the reader. I also improved the last graf's description of Obama courtiers (claimed by Drew) role in this.

I will say that if no original work or sourcing is necessary, then I would (modestly) characterizemy comment on this SOS topic as more "fair and balanced", and less filled with either Clinton or Obama worship, or Clinton or Obama Derangement Syndrome than Drew's.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

all along Obama has been reinforcing and feeding their idiocy and their false narratives--and Rahm is famous for feeding (and playing) the press too.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I stress the important part because it's a short hop from these kinds of trivia filled narratives to OMG! Iraq has WMD! narratives. As you rightly point out, this type of "reporting" mirrors Judith Miller in terms of its "technique." And as the great Bob Somerby has documented, these narratives are killing us. Literally.

And, yes, this has way more to do with Versailles than it does with any particular king.

Kudos for the way you point out the weaknesses, which even a non-tech person like me gets almost instantly.

Well done.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

and now Clinton forced Obama to make her SOS.

Those awful Clinton/Gores!

Or is it that Obama is just so amazingly jiujitsu smart that he KNEW she woulld force him to make her SOS and that worked perfectly into his plan to keep her from making trouble for him in the Senate, and by it actually only LOOKING like she forced him (but she really didn't se, since this is his whipsmart plan) she made herself look pathetic and calculating and she will be ineffective and then Obama can fire her and we will be rid of the Clinton's FOREVER! And much rejoicing will happen in Oz as the wine flowed like water in chambers of every Villagers abode.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

for SoS--that they automatically blame Kerry and see him as a loser always (he is, but that's not the point).

the new administration is entirely catering to the DC Village -- and not to voters' needs or desires.