Krugman misunderstands the Press War on Gore

[hfojvt]

Let's see if I can scoop Somerby.

As we all have now read, Krugman writes:

"What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.htm...

I started my day by reading Somerby and his headline was complaining about Krugman. www.dailyhowler.com/

Okay, then I read Krugman and Weintraub and Gitlin before coming to DU.

I can see Somerby's complaint. Krugman claims that the hatred of Gore comes from "wanting to make Bush more legitimate as President" and he also claims it is partisan - Republican hatred of Gore.

What that misses is the war that started on Gore in 1999, and it was waged by alot of people, who supposedly are not even Republicans (or who would claim some sort of professional media neutrality). It was waged by the So-Called Liberal Media - the New York Times, The Boston Globe, the Washington Post. It was even abetted by "The Nation". The motherfu$%ing Nation!!! Of all magazines!

Alexander Cockburn wrote a piece sliming Gore in October of 2000, and Katrina waved it into print. Cockburn was still doing it about three months ago, when he trashed not only Gore, who he said was owned by the TVA, but also the very idea of global warming which he compared a fundamentalist religion.

As Somerby points out today and a month ago, even Bob Herbert, who is usually excellent and reliably liberal, took a turn at bashing Gore in October of 2000. So did our darling Arianna Huffington. Although she has since switched sides, she still glosses over her own conduct in election 2000.

(Responding to somebody who said Kit Seeyle and Ceci Connelly would never "understand Gore derangement syndrome" I concluded.)
Kit and Ceci will never "understand" because they are decorated veterans of the war on Gore. As that war was engaged in by a Confederacy of Rich A$$holes, Kit and Ceci were probably awarded Medals of Honor by that Confederacy, for service above and beyond the call of duty.

Brian Williams is the same way though. He slimed Gore hard in election 2000, and is now the anchor of NBC news. Trashing a Democrat is good for your career. The "medals" are actually big sacks of money. Gore was attacked the worst, but the entire press has become Foxified - basically the media arm of the Republican National Committee.

[bryant69]

1. I really like Somersby and I think he's done yeoman work

What he says about campaign 2000 is crucial to understanding how we got to where we are today, and why our big political pundits are likely to do exactly the same thing again.

Bryant

[jaysunb]

5. Agreed

You hit it on the head ! :thumbsup:

You'll never find your way forward if you don't know how you got there.

[Canuckistanian]

15. I agree

Somersby was Gore's roommate at Harvard, but he's done stellar work at chronicling the 1999/2000 Gore smears.

An interesting take on the Krugman article here:
http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=286

[Jim__]

2. I disagree with what he says about the Nation.

I am sure he is correct that Alexander Cockburn slimed Gore. However, Cockburn is a regular Nation columnist and, as such, I think the Nation should print his columns pretty much as he submits them. I don't think that every opinion that is printed in a magazine is endorsed by the magazine. I don't believe that the Nation itself ever slimed Gore, although I'm sure they disagreed with him on many points.

That said, I think the Nation could drop Cockburn's column without losing anything of substance.

[hfojvt]

4. I cannot say I know how a newspaper works

but I do not see why an editor cannot have some control, read the column and say "this is a piece of sh*t, write something better because this magazine is not gonna print this." Isn't it a standard in most jobs that you have to do "good work" to keep your job. What the heck are editors for? Just to correct spelling? Where does the buck stop?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

25. In the McCarthyite era of 2000,

i.e. at a time when Gore was guilty until proven innocent, it was unconscionable that the premier liberal magazine should pile on one month before the election. It gave the Bill Maher types an imprimatur of validity. Editorial discretion was called for and lacking.

I'm sure it would have been a hard thing to do for Katrina, but not as hard as say, carrying a full load of gear in Baghdad in 130 degree heat.

And one more time, just because it is good for the soul: @#$% Bill Maher!!!!!!!!!

P.S. To use his own sophomoric word, he is a "pussy." He would not last 10 minutes on his show with any Daily Howler reader. He would be shown up as someone else who, like Chris Matthews, Ceci Connolly and Kit Seelye, has bloody hands.

[hfojvt]

26. there probably is a competition issue

Since Cockburn is a competitor, with the Counterpunch website and newsletter, perhaps The Nation feels like they have to appease him to keep him from being a full competitor. Especially as Cockburn shows his vindictiveness with his JAMPOT files, attacks on his former friend Christopher Hitchens.

I used to enjoy Counterpunch, but once primary season began in 2003, they seemed to spend alot of time "punching" Democrats. As I check it today, it seems to be in full-smear mode against Gore. Cockburn seems to be typical of the history of the American left. Quite willing and eager to attack other leftists for failure to be sufficient pure and ideologically correct. Interesting that they mirror the Wall Street Journal in saying that Gore did not deserve the Nobel.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

27. Yep.

Jeff Cohen also did a factually-challenged hit piece on Gore today.

[Cha]

14. I've read before that The Nation

will print articles they don't agree with, editorially speaking. They printed snitch hitchens for years until he left.

cockburn has some true stuff sometimes but other times he just seems to make up shit.

[fasttense]

3. Yup, I seem to remember everyone jumping on the

Gore is boring bandwagon. I was politically naive at the time and thought no one would vote against a President because some news organizations thought he was boring. I still voted for Gore, but of course the only votes that were counted were from the nine on the black robed junta.

[hfojvt]

6. it wasn't just that he was boring

It was that he was a liar, he reinvented himself, he invented the internet and discovered Love Canal and was in Love Story, and would say or do anything in order to become President, etc., etc., etc.

And it continued, perhaps because he was expected to run in 2004, or because he opposed the Bush administration. When he gave a speech opposing the Iraq war in 2002, the M$M ran out to say that he was "off his meds" and they still like to talk about "Al Gore is soooo fat!" Even SNL was bashing him last Saturday - making fun of his Nobel win and painting him as an arrogant idiot gloating over all of his trophies, which he won for "an inconvenient truth".

[The Count]

8. SNL made fun of his 'losing" the election - so, they are part of the pack

There's never his name in an MSM article not followed by "who lost the election to bush". They made the lie into hos last name.

[msmcghee]

12. Yeah, and he sighs. n/t

[Cha]

16. That's cause the corporatemediawhores

were pounding it into anyone who would listen's head!

And as hfojvt says ..it wasn't just "boring"..it was "Wooden, LIAR!" They dug up everything they could on him and spun into an unholy WAR ON GORE!

I remember at the Eleventh Hour when bushit got his DUI revealed by somebody up in Maine..the corporatemediawhores went after Gore..because, "How Dare He Be a Member Of The Party Who Uncovered their goldenass boy's DUI?????

Anybody can go back and look at the archives..I seem to remember little katie couric as one of the mean faces interviewing Gore about bushit's DUI..I could not believe it. I was still a greenhorn.

[mulsh]

7. A reminder folks

As I recall Gore was framed as "the kid who on Friday afternoon reminds the teacher to assign weekend homework." Bush was framed as "the guy you would want to have a beer with" by most media idiots.

both are subtle and effective.

I'd rather have a beer with Al Gore because eventually I'd want to talk about something other than, as W said, "pussy."

[The Count]

9. Especially since, allegedly, bush doesn't drink anymore...

Funny how they have it both ways - a dry drunk who is fun to drink with.

[Uncle Joe]

10. The timing of this tells me, the media's target was really Al Gore from the beginning

a"DOWD AND RICH (7/13/92): Some have christened the new ticket "Elvis and Eddie Haskell."

Mr. Clinton is the sinner who has seen the light, but he still has a bit of bad-boy swagger that leavens his persona as a policy wonk. Mr. Gore, by contrast is the straight-A student who never lets one forget it."

Elvis was and is popular with a good section of the nation, Eddie Haskell wasn't and isn't. I still believe the media's primary motivation for waging the "Clinton Witch Hunt" transformed in to the "War Against Gore" was a set up from the beginning because Al Gore was the primary political champion of opening up the Internet for the American People. They feared for their own livelihoods. Prior to the Internet pretty much everyone was segregated to whatever version of the truth the media wanted to portray, the Internet makes that pretty much impossible.

They didn't want a President in power sympathetic to their competition, they prefer to keep their monopoly on information in order to make it easier to manipulate the American People to do whatever the media desires, whether it be enabling a corrupt incompetent Bush to the White House, cheer leading the American People in to a war based on lies or just puffing up whatever candidate they want in power.

One other irony to consider, they waged press war against the Clintons for eight years, today I still don't know what has motivated them to turn such a dramatic 180 on putting the same couple in the White House, they were so eager to kick out in the first place.

[Cha]

17. Right On! Good analysis regarding

the internet!

Maybe the answer to your question at the end regarding The Clintons is the corporatemediawhores manipulate everything so they want hillary in the General only to eviservate her the way they did Gore OR they think they've found a friend in hillary..she's promised them the Moon. Only time will tell.

Cynical me doesn't see any other options.. the way she's been shoved down our throats.

[AuntPatsy]

18. I agree that they are giving Hillary a wide berth, and why as you say still remains

hidden until the actual race begins. Am I worried? Yes, I don't trust the msm any more than I do those in this administration, they never do things without a reason...

[Cha]

19. That's right, AuntPatsy!

Because, without the M$$M there would be no bushit.

[hfojvt]

20. they are not working to put them in the White House

they are working to give her the nomination. There's a huge difference. They also worked very hard to take the nomination away from Dean. Once she wins the nomination I expect them to turn the dogs loose.

There was quite a bit of attacks on her health care plan. Much more so than Edwards got for almost the same plan. But lately I saw Billo on Leno, and Leno said "Hillary's the only person with a health care plan." (as he asked Billo what he thought about the plan)

This, after Leno already had the Edwards and Kucinich on his show (but Kucinich did not talk much about policy, he was hawking a book). (Maybe Dennis had mentioned single payer and Leno said "major candidates", contrasting Hillary with her Republican opponents.)

I think with that Elvis comparison, they just had to admit to Clinton's crowd appeal.

[Uncle Joe]

22. Thank you for the correction, actually nomination

is what I meant to imply and yet should the Republican candidate lose, who would be there favorite backup choice for the White House? It might turn out to be someone else, but it seems to me, a huge waste of their energy to promote someone close to a nomination only to tear them down.

Also I thought Dean's early support came mostly from the Internet?

[Uncle Joe]

24. One other important point, I would like to make

I'm not taking anything away from Bill Clinton's back slapping and oratory skills, it's just that Al Gore was never an Eddie Haskell and the media knew it.

[msmcghee]

11. Thanks for bringing this up.

I wish people would take the time to understand what Somerby is saying. We're in serious trouble as progressives and as a nation if they don''t.

[Cha]

13. I think the Excellent Paul Krugman

is over simplifying it and you've got it, hfojvt! Thank you..someday all this will get straightened out..what book that would make if it were the factual one!!

Rec'd~

[hfojvt]

21. Not me, I just read alot of Daily Howler

Somerby promises to lay it all out chapter and verse tomorrow. If he hadn't hinted at it today, I might not have noticed. Most of the OP I learned from his site, and he gets major credit for pointing out alot of it, in real time, back when it was happening in 1999 and 2000. Krugman too, was writing columns in the Times calling Bush on his tax cut and social security lies before the 2000 election. So was that fellow over at Citizens for Tax Justice and the good folks at Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

[Cha]

23. Well, thanks for alerting us

to Somerby's work and getting it together!