With Friends Like These
by digby
A couple of weeks ago I wrote about the press swooners and how their ongoing absurdity is going to end up hurting Barack Obama and the Democrats in the long run. I highlighted the Daily Howler's take on one particular fellow, Kurt Anderson. You remember him. He's the guy who said this:
ROSE (5/21/08): I am pleased to have Kurt Andersen back at this table. Welcome.
ANDERSEN: Great to be back.
ROSE: Here we have The Imperial City—all right? Look here: “About That Crush on Obama.” You—like Michael Kinsley is saying—“I’m swooning.”
ANDERSEN: Oh, and I’ve said it from the get-go. I have never—because this is a column, because I don’t have to pretend like real journalists to be objective—
ROSE: It’s opinion. Right.
ANDERSEN: —I’ve been unabashed about my fondness and, yes, my swooning for Obama.
ROSE: OK. Does it grow? And what is it that causes you to be so swoony? Obviously, for you to say this means that you’ve thought about this, and what is it about him?
ANDERSEN: Yes.
Fine. If we're going to have media people swooning, I'm glad it's a Democrat for once. But as I wrote in that piece, these people are not trustworthy. Even when they are "on your side" you end up getting screwed.
Well, within virtual minutes of Obama's victory, here comes our liberal hero, writing about his "second thoughts." It is a collection of pretentious navel gazing and tiresome "concerns" that should be left to private listservs and cocktail chatter instead of appearing in magazines.
Here's an example:
6. Is he “elitist,” too condescending and glib and remote and full of himself? I don’t find him so—but then again, I myself am an elitist who can seem condescending and glib and remote and full of himself, so who am I to judge? I worry that more moments like his passive-aggressive put-down of Hillary at her cutesy-wounded debate moment—“You’re likable enough”—will continue to lose friends and alienate people. I also worry that his impolitic cosmopolitan shorthand—frustrated small-towners who cling to guns and religion and blame immigrants for their economic distress, energy-glutton Americans who expect developing countries to reduce their carbon emissions—will recur. True humility is a disqualifier for winning the nomination and certainly the presidency, but the appearance of humility, at least as a tactical posture, can be essential. It certainly worked for George W. Bush. Obama’s surpassing self-confidence can come across as preening self-regard. Thus, perhaps, his bungled outreach to Elizabeth Edwards, as reported by my colleague John Heilemann. Will he make the uncool, insecure middle-American majority feel even more so?
7. His instincts that attract me amount to weaknesses as a candidate. Too often, instead of deflecting inconvenient questions, Obama answers them directly and fully. And while the U.S. should, of course, be confident enough to have conversations with foreign enemies, any Democratic nominee carries the baggage of several decades of national-security wimpiness. Voters implicitly understand that any Democrat will be more reasonable and prudent and diplomatically engaged than Bush or McCain; it’s an impression of convincing toughness Obama has to sell, and I’m not sure he can do it.
Yes, this fellow is a certified, dyed in the wool liberal from way back who admits in this piece that he has been wrong about just about everything. He actually seems to be proud of it. I guess that's why everyone likes and respects him so much.
This doesn't help us folks. Do we really want Tim Russert and David Broder and Chris Matthews peddling this nonsense all over the gasbag shows? Do we want this dialog on the pages of the NY Times and the Washington Post? That's where this type of destructive, free-association MSM musing winds up. Stupid media narratives created by people like this, who seem to need to utter or publish every stray thought that passes through their beautiful minds, are bad for us. Jon Stewart said it then and it's true now, "they're hurting America."
.