The Top 10 Political Train Wrecks Of 2008

December 27, 2:15 AM
by Jim L. Cunningham, DC Progressive Examiner

<snip>

(As I see it.)

10. Objectivity goes bye-bye at MSNBC: I used to argue that MSNBC had the guts to objectively report inconvenient facts about the Bush Administration without feeling obligated to present a fact along with an opposing “viewpoint” as Fox News notoriously does. Sure, Keith Olbermann was probably a liberal, but he was telling the unvarnished truth about an administration that was getting away with quite a lot. Chris Matthews seemed to sway left and right, clearly more of a rabble rouser than a partisan. He didn’t seem to choose sides. He probably even helped Bush by inventing fake issues out of whole cloth like “which candidate would you rather have a beer with”, or, “who would stop and help you change a tire”, during both of Bush’s presidential campaigns. Any question as to their objectivity went out the window when they were both stricken dumb by Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention. The two of them practically wept (I think I saw Matthews sneakily wipe a tear away when he thought the camera was only on Keith) when trying to find something to say immediately after the speech. Sure, it was a moving moment and, as a liberal, I felt what they felt and I could hardly blame them, but the cat was out of the bag. That night, at least, MSNBC was a liberal version of Fox News. MSNBC management dismissed both of them from anchoring political coverage for that display of partisanship – perhaps trying to repair what they perceived as hole which the duo tore through the network’s objective news coverage. Now, MSNBC will have to redouble its efforts to keep-separate what it considers commentary and news. Olbermann and Mathews have good shows in part because of their passion, and I still watch them religiously, but the network will have to find someone else to objectively report on live political events. Fox News should remain unique in blurring those lines as a network.


9. That schmuck, Blagojevich: That just HAD to be a “D” after his name, didn’t it? Idealists like me like to believe Democrats are above such behavior and that this kind of corruptions is strictly reserved for Republicans with an “R”. And Obama had to keep his lip buttoned for just long enough for the conservative media to accuse, insinuate and bloviate. It was our turn to gloat and Blagojevich spoiled the party and stole the headlines.


8. Lieberman campaigning for John McCain: In principal, I support the premise that individuals within a party can, occasionally, against the party on certain issues. (Sometimes that’s called leadership.) Joe Lieberman made such a habit of it that he lost a Democratic Primary and had to run as an Independent. Fine. However, he still caucuses with the Democrats and his supporters count on him for his mostly left-leaning voting record. When Lieberman endorsed John McCain, campaigned with him and then spoke at the Republican Convention, he went a bridge too far. Crazy old Zell Miller didn’t do all of that.


7. A divided Democratic Party: It takes a lot of anger to make a Democrat so invested in a Democratic candidate say they’d rather vote Republican than vote for the “other” candidate if theirs lost the primary. And both Hillary and Barack supporters said they would. Senator Clinton and Barack Obama have both gone to great lengths since then to heal those wounds, but I’ll never forget how the subject was, still is, a touchy one among friends and colleagues. I have no doubt that friendships were lost, relationships ended and permanent wounds inflicted over Clinton/Obama brawls.


6. “Obama is a Muslim/Terrorist” and other lies: The insinuations from the McCain/Palin campaign were outrageous but, being an official campaign, they had to do it with a wink and a nod. The garbage that came from Fox News (like the “Terrorist fist bump”) was pretty bad and what came from conservative talk radio hosts was somewhat worse. But it was that which came from the Republican “base” in the crowds in and around the McCain/Palin rallies that was truly horrifying and shameful:

Videos at link: http://www.examiner.com/x-1470-DC-Progressive-Examiner~y2008m12d27-The-top-10-political-car-wrecks-of-2008

5. Joe the Plumber: Or, should I say, Joe the logo? Even Joe himself said McCain made him feel dirty, but he still didn’t get off the bus. He rode his wave of manufactured popularity for all it was worth, accepting a book deal and a recording contract touring as a country singer… Joe the opportunist in the great Republican tradition. He was the perfect Republican logo. He was behind on his taxes, lied about being almost ready to buy a business, wasn’t registered to vote, and not even a licensed plumber to begin with. He was once on welfare and, now that he’s doing better, would deny the same opportunity to others, calling it “socialism”. He eventually admitted that he would, in fact, receive a tax cut under Obama’s plan. But sure, he hopes someday he will make that $250,000 a year, at which point he aspires to say, "I got mine. Screw everybody else."

He was practically a walking metaphor for Joe Six-pack Republicanism. Joe was an opportunist conned into voting against his own interests by conservative propaganda and the hope of a wealthy, and greedy, future. When he was shown to be wrong he would rather call people names and tell lies than admit the truth and realize he was being used. In the end, he made up a justification to stay on the bus even when he knew it made him dirty.


4. Sarah Palin: Choosing Sarah Palin as a running mate was a Hail Mary pass of an attempt at saving a Presidential campaign, and it failed miserably. She was a marketing gimmick that only the already-well-indoctrinated fell for. All the people who knew they were supposed to vote Republican but could barely stomach McCain found in Palin the excuse they needed. It made the rest of the country feel dirty. Pitching her, as McCain did, as being “just what the country needs right now” was a slimy sales job that would make most used car salesmen blush. Also sad, but perhaps less so because her political positions are so despicable, is that Palin became the unsuspecting victim of Republican opportunism. I’m sure she’s a fine leader in her own right – on her turf and of her own people. She probably would have developed into a more formidable foe if she’d been left to her own devises to mature as a politician instead of, as it happened, having the McCain campaign drag her fledgling career out into the sun before its time, where it wilted in the limelight. They told her she was ready and then used her as a mascot. She may understand this now, but it’s too late. She’ll always be a punch line.


3. A poke in the eye for Gay rights: Gay people can’t catch a break. Three states passed gay marriage bans in the 2008 election. Even the Mormons, who usually tend to mind their own business and not impose their views on others, surprised everyone by throwing their money and support behind Proposition 8. Our poll-reading Democratic leaders - even our “Change” candidate - still have not the cajones to publically support gay marriage on principal. To add insult to injury, Obama has chosen Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. For gay people in 2008, even the word “hope” has to ring hollow.


2. The hijacking of feminism: It’s true that Hillary faced sexism from the media and a still-unidentified man holding an awful sign at the back of a crowd. It was wrong to hang all these evils, like an albatross, around the neck of Barack Obama – a man who truly supports women’s issues. (Something Hillary barely mentioned, save for the “glass ceiling” references while on the campaign trail.) When candidate Clinton turned out to be a not-so-sure thing, many angry women blamed sexism instead of their candidate and her poorly-run campaign. (And consider that, perhaps, America is ready for a female President but Hillary just isn’t it.) On Martin Luther King Day, like an opportunist, Senator Clinton repeatedly snuck the words “and women” into a speech that shouldn’t have been about her. Many, when the primary was over, threw their support behind John McCain, apparently willing to overlook all else to see a woman in the Executive Branch of government. Shamefully, Sarah Palin was chosen to be McCain’s running mate simply because she was female – and then squirreled away from the media, lest they find out Sarah was only there for marketing purposes and wouldn’t hold up under the scrutiny that, once it came, was also labeled sexism. When Palin’s daughter was discovered to be pregnant, the family proudly proclaimed that said daughter had made the “choice” to have the baby, as if her mother supported a woman’s right to make any other. Sarah Palin’s views couldn’t have been more antithetical to all that women have fought for. Yet, they had the gall to call her a feminist. Now, when Caroline Kennedy is being considered for Senator Clinton’s vacated Senate seat, seemingly because of her last name, the questioning by skeptics of her credentials has also been labeled sexist.

I may have a penis, but even I know that Feminism is about rights and equality, and not something that should be used as a crutch, bludgeon, or marketing tool whenever it’s convenient. This year we saw a lot of opportunism dressed up as feminism. Ultimately, such things hurt the movement and I believe history will show that, for women, 2008 was a really bad year.


1. The end of John Edwards’ political career: For many years – for almost as long as I’ve been politically aware – I’ve believed that America’s biggest problem is that big corporations are screwing the American people to the extent that they can get away with which, over the course of the last eight years, has been quite a lot. They’re screwing us as employees. They’re screwing us as consumers. They’re screwing us as neighbors just trying to share the environment. I was always a supporter of John Edwards - back since about the fall of 2003 – because I believe that Edwards was the only candidate who truly understood the gravity of the situation – and placed it sufficiently high enough on his list of priorities to satisfy me. That, and he felt we had a duty to lift people out of poverty. What a novel concept for a Democrat. Oh, how now nicely this would have dovetailed into our current situation! Even if not President himself – even serving in any capacity – he would have been a vital and influential leader for these times. The kind who was right on the issues before everyone else caught up and his issues became all the rage. He had the credibility to speak on the current state of things and people would have listened. And then there was the thing that, unfortunately, ended his political career. I hope John Edwards continues to find a way to serve because, even though he let us down, we still need him. His country, now more than ever, still needs his brand of leadership.

<snip>

Link: http://www.examiner.com/x-1470-DC-Progressive-Examiner~y2008m12d27-The-top-10-political-car-wrecks-of-2008

Feel free to add your own! Or... change the order...

:shrug:

regretting his unfortunate choice to be unfaithful.

I think we could really use both John Edwards AND Elliot Spitzer right about now.

It took a long while before Gary Hart was accepted back as a credible spokesman...

I wonder how long for Edwards and Spitzer?

:shrug:

Indiscretions haven't really put much of a crimp at all in the careers of Senators Craig and Vitter. And if it was only 5 felonies instead of 7, maybe Ted Stevens too.

There, I think Spitzer has somewhat of an advantage. He really was someone who did very successfully fight a lot of corruption on Wall Street. If he were to come out with suggestions for tools that would provide regulators with the ability to make sense of the complexities, he could become credible in that field. Hart was an expert in many fields - and was prescient in his and Rudman's report on terrorism.

I think Edwards may have more of a problem. Even before his scandal doomed a future career, his future was not that bright anyway. He certainly could not make a third run for President - he would not be credible having won just 1 primary in 2 years and having gone so far to the left he might have made himself unelectable state wide in NC. It looked liked he was intending to transition to making an impact as an activist on poverty issues. That may be what still works the best now - as it will lend substance to his rhetoric.)

Edwards' 2008 run was based on inspiring words that did not match his past actions spoken by a charismatic handsome speaker. He made that work for many people, but it was based entirely on trust. He did not seem to have the respect of his former colleagues. Feingold was more outspoken, but I doubt he was alone in seeing that Edwards had not supported the positions he was running on as Senator. Many Senators have actually held investigations or written legislation to fight corporate corruption - Edwards didn't. Others fought legislation that added the problem - Edwards didn't. He voted for a bankruptcy bill even though he had to know how badly it would hurt the poor. (Elizabeth specialized in bankruptcy law, so he can't claim he didn't understand it.

In addition to being a personal train wreck, the scandal likely shook people's willingness to trust that he was who he said he was. The author of this piece clearly gave Edwards his trust and given his comments he still trusts him politically, though many don't. It is interesting that he supported Edwards in 2003 - the fact is that Kerry, Dean, and Gephardt all had much better records actually working to help the poor and fighting corporate corruption.

If trust has been lost, my guess is that Edwards would need to actually do some substantive work on an issue to gain credibility as an expert in it - then he would be seen as a credible spokesman. Can he do it? Of course - he is very intelligent and well spoken. But, like Hart, he may never again be an elected official - though he might be in a future administration. (I think Hart, who heads a Kerry allied national security think tank, would have been in a Kerry administration.)

A lot of people supported him around here, and he really bleeped up.

Sure, if you tune in weeknights from 8pm--10pm, but the day consists of more than just 2 hrs!

for justice.

Again, a good man felled by a PRIVATE matter.
Yes, he lied to his wife, but, frankly that's the only person in this that deserves to kick his ass.
The rest is just hypocritical political BS!!

It's this antiquated Puritanical view of sex that keeps throwing wrenches into the gears of progress.

Example: Prop 8

No way it can be known, but...

I've been wondering how many MoFos who've been unfaithful to their wives or husbands voted "Yes" on Prop 8 as some form of regretful projection?

ie. "Of course I believe in the sanctity of Marriage (even though I've screwed around on my wife 10 or 20 times). Let me prove it by voting FOR Proposition 8!"

:banghead:

Believe me those type of folks are out there... I've worked in the bar industry on and off for over 30 years.

:shrug:

He may not have had a record that matched people further to the left on the campaign trail, such as Kucinich, but of the two, he had the better shot at dragging the party left. I was torn between the two, mainly because I knew Kucinich wasn't able to raise enough compared to Edwards. Edwards' rhetoric reminded me of the old-style Democrats who used to run during the FDR-Truman era who were unabashedly pro-labor and pro-regulation. Too many of today's Democrats would sooner throw workers under the bus with helping to send jobs overseas at the expense of national security.

was the worst disaster to hit the Democratic party in years. I only hope that he can make a comeback when time and events fade his "sin" (ahem) into the semi forgotten past. I have always admired him.

It was an amazing speech that moved everyone. The bullshit started when Brokaw and Williams pretended to be "objective" by acting like they weren't impressed. That was fake. That was the lie. I'll take honesty over "balance" any day. It's conservative bias when journalists aren't allowed to say that a speech was spectacular because they're afraid of being told they have a liberal bias.

MSNBC has the only three hours of clearly liberal programming on all of cable news. That makes them closer to being balanced but nothing like Fox. Conservatives cry "liberal bias" to silence the few liberal voices in the press and this writer has fallen for it. They stick out only because they are so unusual.

MSNBC just chose a niche - liberal politics - to try to gain a loyal audience. It was just a marketing strategy, and there's nothing wrong with that. fox has been successful with a similar strategy from the right.

is equal to 24 hours of conservative bias on Fox? Really? When conservatives get them off the air by screaming about liberal bias, will you be happy? Will you be convinced that MSNBC is objective again for having their usual corporate bias with more subtlety like the rest of their programming? All you're saying is that you don't recognize the bias of MSNBC's other 21 hours of programming.

I said it was MSNBC's marketing strategy... you know, to attract audience and attract advertisers?????? that's the purpose of a
TV network, isn't it?

n/t

But Radical Activist also has a point. MSNBC has a prime time block with a clear liberal bias because as you point out there is their marketing strategy. It is also well known and understood that Matthews, Olbermann, and Maddow are liberals and that they aren't reporting the news so much as they are commenting on the process. However, this doesn't mean that MSNBC has lost their objectivity the way Fox has. Fox runs 24/7 right wing propaganda under the guise of "Fair and Balanced".

MSNBC has 3 hours of liberal bias at night and 3 hours of conservative bias with Scarborough's show in the morning, neither of which claim to be "Fair and Balanced". Admittedly the fact that the liberal bias gets a more prominent time slot is unfair but as you said, it's about ratings. But while MSNBC has sacrificed some objectivity in the process of boosting ratings, FOX has sacrificed all of its objectivity. The remaining 18 hours on MSNBC are either objective or filled with those stupid prison documentaries (my main problem with MSNBC). However, they are far more objective than the documentaries that FOX runs in non-prime hours about how Obama is a secret muslim terrorist.

plus, shit like this just pushes the rest of MSNBC and NBC (MTP, etc) further to the right. Plus, Chris has said drooling things about Republicans too, and the rest of the MSM didn't care then. Plus, remember Brokaw's FIRST reaction to Clinton's DNC speech was "Well, let's remember, Bill Clinton was a draft dodger, while MCCain is an American Hero, so Democrats need to be careful." Yeah, real objective there.

edit: Plus, the thing I most remember about the DNC coverage on MSNBC was PUMAS! and "Wow, the Democrats are giving NO red meat."

Not lamenting it. We need a leftist Faux.

It's pretty much Fox talking points all until 5. But less people probably watch during the day, so whatevs. I do think it's hilarious that freepers are always talking about how "liberal" NBC/the hosts of MTP are. And the Palin interview with Brian Williams was shameful.

especially since it is a wreck that is still in progress. :D

:rofl:

:evilgrin:

:hi:

I don't see how there could be a top ten political disasters list of 2008 that did NOT have that woman at the very top.

And it's highly plausible that she'll be a political disaster again in the not so distant future too...

His incompetence was just as bad as Edwards' indiscretion.

I demand a recount.

People who feel that way will have their hearts broken every time. Strange for me to feel like an elder here, but people should realize the Democratic party has never been a progressive utopia of truth and justice.

*singing* "When will they ever learn, when will they eveeeeeeeer learn..."

:shrug:

but I don't see that as the #1 story of the year..

I would say the stock market fiasco has to be #1.. I'm not even sure I'd put Edwards story on the list of trainwrecks...

#2 would probably be McCain picking Sarah Palin for his running mate.

Doug D.

for me, #3 Gays getting shat upon, and trust me, we don't like it one bit - #2 John Edwards - I think I'm still in shock, and very disheartened that someone who GLOWED on the final few debates and overshadowed HRC & BHO fell mighty hard because of his lust despite being married to a lovely woman with cancer. That's what made it much worse than 'well, it's none of our biz but she's so nice', no it was that she was so nice & smart, and she had cancer! sigh... I hope he can advise privately, yes? and #1 -----

GOBBLE GOBBLE on that leftover Turkey -

Sarah Palin who devoured John McCain's chances to ride racism and fear over Obama's light political experience to the presidency - instead, McCain showed he had no right even being considered by picking an absolutely unbridled MORON, the likes we haven't ever seen - even Dumya and Quayle weren't as embarrassing.

Thanks John McCain, you made the other John story lose out to your political brilliance in thinking - SARAH PALIN WAS QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA!

And McCrook for picking her as his running mate.

The worst political decision ever.

Ba-dump, pshhh!

Shhh...

:hide:

:hi:

:hi:

:hide:

Hmm