A few articles have popped up on radar, and they all appear to be orbiting each other. The two key personalities are Jonathan Alter and Hillary Clinton.
First, I should point out this commentary from the London Times, which demonstrates that Hillary Clinton is such an incredibly awful human being that even socialists won't pretend to like her, so long as they don't have a political iron in the fire. A highlight:
As you consider her career this past 15 years or so in the public spotlight, it is impossible not to be struck, and even impressed, by the sheer ruthless, unapologetic, unshameable way in which she has pursued this ambition, and confirmed that there is literally nothing she will not do, say, think or feel to achieve it. Here, finally, is someone who has taken the black arts of the politician’s trade, the dissembling, the trimming, the pandering, all the way to their logical conclusion.
Wow. That's not a right wing pundit, that's the London Times. So how far do her ambitions go?
That brings us to this article in Insight Magazine, a conservative publication, which opens thus:
Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?
This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama.
The article goes on to explain that its sources tell it that Clinton operatives have been trying to dig up dirt on Obama, and feel that his past experiences with Islam will be enough to poison the American electorate to him. The article seems to be a bit of a cute dodge, attacking Obama's past, but doing it through the voice of the Clinton campaign. Ultimately it seems designed to be a win/win for a conservative reader... Not only does Obama have skeletons in his closet, but it's Clinton who was ruthless and backstabbing enough to dig it up.
This brings us to Jonathan Alter... His article, which purports to be some sort of media on media watchdog effort, is where I lose my ability to act like an impartial observer, and want to kick him in his deceitful, partisan, balding little head. According to Wikipedia, “Alter was Newsweek's media critic, where he was among the first in the mainstream media to break tradition and hold other news organizations accountable for their coverage.” A real watchdog, that Jon.
So what's his take on the Obama madrassa story? Well, it's a hoax, it's all about attacking Obama, and it's being perpetrated by FOX (who we all know we can't trust), and further being given legs by Insight magazine, which can't be trusted because it has connections to “the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times,” which is actually the full, official name of the paper in Democrat Hackville. Alter then goes on to challenge the veracity of the accusations against Obama, dismisses them completely, and congratulates himself on not being fooled.
Not once does he engage what is, essentially, the core argument of the Insight article: that Hillary Clinton is making ridiuclous attacks on Obama to secure her own candidicy. I should point out, that the first I heard of this story it was being talked about on Sean Hannity's radio show, and while Hannity wasn't ruling out the idea that Obama studied at a madrassa, he didn't seem to think it was particularly important, relative to the fact that Hillary was the one that put the story out there, and for the purposes of sabotaging Obama. Put simply, the right isn't really interested in what Obama was doing when he was 6, they think it's amazing that Hillary would try to attack it.
But Alter didn't bother to mention this at all. He goes after the “conservatives attack Obama“ strawman with a vengeance. The sheer Democrat hackery of Jonathan Alter made me want to look into him a bit more, which led me to his website, and his current article... Since his web admins are too stupid to provide a permanent URL for it, I'll just quote a few choice sections. He starts off with a real winner:
It’s shameful that the minimum wage hasn’t been raised in nine years and that thousands of ailing Americans will ultimately die because of Bush’s position on stem-cell research.
This is what passes for a media critic in today's mainstream media. But what's even more ironic, is that this article, titled “How to Beat 'Cut and Run',” concerns itself with what the Democrats need to do in order to defeat Karl Rove's “slime machine.”
In case it's not clear, Karl Rove is a political advisor, and his actual job description is to craft arguments and attacks to help his advisees win elections. It's his fucking job to do what Alter is demonizing him for. In contrast, Jonathan Alter is supposedly a media critic and editor of a news magazine (a magazine so news oriented, it has 'news' in the title). But, contrary to his job description, Mr. Alter has taken it upon himself to provide the Democrats with helpful suggestions on language and arguments to defeat the Republicans. Basically what Karl Rove does.
Now, stop and ask yourself, who was doing Karl Rove's job for Bill Clinton? Who is doing it for Hillary? You don't think they have a guy like that in their staff? Please. They have people who spin, who attack, who dig up dirt. They probably have more. But you don't know their names, most likely. Ever wonder why? Many, many Americans know Karl Rove's name... The mainstream media is run by Democrats. They hate Karl Rove because he has managed to beat them at their own game on numerous occaisions. They are fascinated by him because he beats them at their own game.
The fact is, Bill and Hillary, all the Democrats, they have their own Karl Roves. But those Karl Roves aren't spotlighted by the media. In fact, many of them work in the mainstream media. The reason why Karl Rove's name is so common in the mainstream media is quite simple: He is their foil. He is their nemesis. He is to the Republicans as the mainstream media is to the Democrats... And that, folks, is one of the main reasons I hate Democrats.
See, I understand that people are going to have different opinions on things. I don't begrudge Jonathan Alter his. What makes him a slimy, dishonest little douchebag, is the fact that he wraps himself in the mantle of journalistic integrity, of media criticism, of whistleblowing watchdog status, as if he was somehow above the partisan fray. Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? Partisan hacks! Jonathan Alter's standards are higher, he traffics in objective fact, and journalistic truth!
Bullshit.
The real problem, the real evil here, is people like Jonathan Alter. We will always disagree with one another. We will always be partisan. But when people are willing to burn media credibility as a fuel for their political fires, that's unforgivable. The nation depends on a trustworthy and objective news media to help it make political choices. People like Jonathan Alter have destroyed that for their own petty political ends.
Admit who you are, Mr. Alter. Sean Hannity does it. Rush Limbaugh does it. Karl Rove does it. Contrary to your arrogant self-assuredness, there's nothing in your views that makes you above the need to have integrity. If you can't honestly represent who you are, and still sell people on your views, then perhaps you views are not worth hearing?
Karl Rove is doing his job.
You are abusing the trust afforded you by yours.
You should have the decency to quit your job and go work directly for a Democrat politician. It'd be the honest thing to do, and you wouldn't require you to do anything different, besides get your paycheck from the people who you actually work for.