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

Nobody knows anything

Je repete, quoting Krugman:

I spent early Tuesday evening with some major insider types, who had exit polls and believed that Obama had put the thing away. I took the train home, got in very late, went to bed thinking that the nomination fight was over, and opened the papers to see that it wasn’t. Nobody knows anything.

That really has been the story of this campaign: Nobody knows anything. Why?

The polls are wrong, the campaigns are wrong, the DNC is wrong, the RNC is wrong, and especially, especially our famously free press is wrong. (The conservatives are always wrong about everything, so this state of affairs is normal for them.)

It's as if there's an undiscovered planet that's throwing off the orbits of all the known planets.

It's as if there's a huge but untracked source of narratives that's throwing off all the other narratives.

Could it be.... The blogosphere? (And, even more radically, the B, C, and D listers in their tens of thousands of writers and millions of readers?)

NOTE * Hamlet:

so shall you hear
Of carnal, bloody and unnatural acts;
Of accidental judgments, casual slaughters;
Of deaths put on by cunning and forc'd cause;
And, in this upshot, purposes mistook
Fall'n on the inventors' heads:

No votes yet


Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on


It's very true though. I think that those of us who have been ignored, and insulted this primary season are the ones with a better track on how this is going to play out. Many of the blogs are insulated from how this is whole thing is playing out in the real world. People aren't tired of the primaries. They don't want to be lectured on what's wrong with them, instead of having a candidate address their concerns.

And I noticed that the blackmail meme is showing up at Krugman's too. Let the haka begin.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

we has got quality commentating

x X 0 = 0

Real ponies don't oink - Patrick McManus

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I think what we're seeing play out is the disconnect between the media (including certain A-list bloggers) and the American public. It started with the hunting of Bill Clinton, when the media could not believe that the public would not turn on Clinton. All those column inches, all that tv time and they still wouldn't abandon him. Even when Congressional Democrats hesitated, they chose Clinton with their votes in 1998 amidst the mess.

It grew in 2000 when the Supreme Court said Bush won when he didn't and the media acted like it was a good thing.

It grew further in the lead up to Iraq as the media and its experts marched us into a war that few wanted, but most supported once it got started. Look at the continued disconnect on that war - the public hates the war, no matter what the media says, that hasn't changed for years now.

And now we're at another election and people are angry. I'm convinced that their anger isn't limited to the politicians, but extends to the media. Look at the blowback against the Tweety effect in NH. And now, having had Obama shoved down their throats and being told they have no choice but to accept him as the anointed one, what do voters do? Continue to vote in record number. Continue to tell pollsters they don't want Clinton to drop out. Continue to want to be heard.

That's what's throwing the entire thing off - people aren't listening to the narratives.

Whether this is temporary or the media and A-listers are able to smooth this all over for Obama tomorrow, I'm not sure. But if the media had had its way, Clinton would've been out in NH, on Super Tuesday, on March 4, and last week. But for some reason those stupid voters think that they get to decide when this thing is over.

Indeed, if Clinton is somehow able to pull it out (and I'm not convinced she will yet), I think it will have almost as much to do with the voters rejecting the media as it does with them rejecting Obama. Which, IMO, is a good thing. One of the best things to come out of a Clinton nomination and election is the repudiation of the mainstream media by the American public.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

but the media should be satisfied that they winnowed it down to just Obama and Hillary anyway--they did that much.

If the coverage had been at all even-handed, it would not have been these 2, who are both very weak and flawed.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

That’s what’s throwing the entire thing off - people aren’t listening to the narratives.

the narrative that they are ignoring is the Clinton narrative. They realize that the media is completely unreliable when it comes to anything "Clinton", and are simply filtering it all out.

But, if Obama becomes the nominee, the media narrative will drive the agenda again. It will be McCain the GOP maverick vs the "troubled, controversy-ridden" Obama campaign.

Obama isn't the transcendent candidate this year, its Hillary Clinton. She's trancended the media narrative.

OxyCon's picture
Submitted by OxyCon on

C-list commenters like myself.

Submitted by lambert on

The bullet points are what's transcending the narrative -- Great distinction, Paul. 100% on the money.

The voters love it, the press yawns, Hillary's "comfortable in her bullet points." At the heart fo the campaign, awesome discipline.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

One of the best things about her. Even if Clinton isn't your cup of tea, I can't imagine any democrat not enjoying having to watch the MSM covering the inauguration of Hillary Rodham Clinton as the 44th President of the United States.

Think of how hard the media worked to drive her husband from office, to disgrace them both (even making up bullshit stories about taking stuff on their way out), to defeat their successor (Gore), and now to not just beat her but destroy her. And then to have the country elect her president anyway? I honestly cannot think of a bigger Fuck You to David Broder, Maureen Dowd, Chris Matthews, Eleanor Clift, Sally Quinn and the rest of the Village.

In many ways, if they hadn't hated the Clintons so much, Hillary would have no chance of victory. Hell, before impeachment she had never thought about running for office. Gore would be ending his second term. Hillary would be the president of some small college somewhere. If she becomes president, she should send the media a giant thank you note.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

the media knew Clintons are never quitters, and the media knew she could take whatever they dished out, and knew that they're best under pressure and when they can "comeback", etc.

i see the media and Clintons as old brawlers who both know and recognize the strengths/weaknesses of the other, and also that the campaign knew beforehand the media had to escalate and couldn't just go with Monica or other old stuff. Once it was clear how they were going to attack (sexism, racism, and deathwatches all the time), the campaign was all set to capitalize, and to use it and to fight back.

also, their utter failure during his presidency and continued obsession telegraphed what was coming too.

jeqal's picture
Submitted by jeqal on

Great post BD
will have to blame c-list bloggers like Oxycon (still chuckling over that one)

You are right of course, the media has lost touch with its peeps, I don't know a lot about A-list bloggers unless you are referring to the articles that run on Slate. I don't think that they are on the money with what the peeps I know are thinking. Actually I don't think that they are covering more than the fanatical fringe of us.
It's a bit of a poo poo that I'm not somewhere in there but I'm not even fringe enough for that.

I'm going to go loopy and liken this to where movies have gone, a lot of special effects not much of a script.
They are looking at narratives and not realizing that for the most part people are not concerned about which life will make the best movie of the week, we are a little more concerned about where our kids or ourselves will have to move to survive.

The cast of the media also plays like a made for TV movie, the women are to the point of starvation (I almost think we should start a rice drive for MSNBC and FOX) and the men are getting way too smiley and silly. When did this start?

I'm ready to resurrect Bill Bonds. I want that newscaster style back, holy crap. Just give me the bite, some humor, and serious newscasting. Especially in the political arena where I don't have to find myself doing my own research because I literally TRUST NO ONE in the media.

Flippancy is great fun but fun best left to bloggers and c-listers, someone, somewhere , somehow needs to save America from having to do all this personal research. I want a Newscasterperson I can trust.

“Democrats have a habit of falling in love with candidates on the first date.”

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

on PBS -- "... the PBS “Wide Angle” series, The Associated Press reported. Mr. Brown said that his new job as anchor of “Wide Angle,” a weekly public affairs series with a global focus, offered an opportunity “to work in an environment where people just think about making good TV and good journalism.” ..." --

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

media matters--

"... No longer content to be observers of the campaign, journalists now see themselves as active players in the unfolding drama, and they show no hesitation trying to dictate the basics of the contest, like who should run and who should quit. It's as if journalists are auditioning for the role of the old party bosses. ..."

Submitted by cg.eye on

are set up for them, not for the delegates.

I mean, if conventions were for the delegates to get together and make up their minds, we'd have at least four Democratic candidates still making their cases for their favorite policy initiatives and visions of a better America, up until Rush Limbaugh, dressed as a priest, finishes wiring his bomb at the Colorado Convention Center, taking time out to fondle the ass of a member of a boy's choir -- sorry, FACE/OFF acid flashback.

But how fucked up is it to have a press that wants one and only one triumphant story (just like the goddamn Olympics every few years) about the one winner they can research, back, and present like the lucky duck he or she is? No one backs the right horse in the beginning, unless they're in on the doping from the start. We should know this by now.

I wondered four years ago why it was all pageant, or vice president speculation. Now we know that they want maximum pagentry to act as unpaid commercial time for the party. Betcha people would be more involved in an election if they knew their delegates actually had decisions to make at the last minute. Even pro wrestling, decades after we knew for a legal fact it was fake, still insists on a veneer of spontaneity....