Tell me Susan Schmidt didn't win a Pulitzer!?!

she DID!!!!!!

What on EARTH?

I knew the Pulitzer's have been a fraud for a long time, but this tops it all

amazing

she's on with Tweety, along with a real journalist, James Risen, whose book got him a likely indictment

EDIT: read this, which just takes apart the Post's "Ombudsman" Deborah Howell, as well as Schmidt, for their amazingly shoddy reporting/coverup of said shoddy reporting re: Abramoff money to dems

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/01/two_lies_from_w.html

that's just one instance

this garbage is what prompted the Post to scrub the entire exchange between Howell and irate readers, who pointed out all the lies and inaccuracies in Post coverage of Abramoff's 'directed' donations, as well as his supposed campaign funding of democrats, the latter of which never happened

along with Risen.

exaggerating

from Ken Starr, to sliming Joe Wilson, she's been, if not the most complicit WH stenographer of them all, certainly one of the very most

I feel like I've been kicked right in the jewels

this is beyond disgusting

I need a drink



EDIT: using 'whore' without reference to gender, as in Chris Matthews, media whore. Howard Kurtz, media whore

I guess Pulitzers are no longer all that prestigious.:(

Just write down everything they tell me to, how hard can that be. Maybe they give Pulitzer's for taking dictation? She's another Judy Miller but without the writing ability.

for the best stenographer in DC

But I can't remember her take on things...

surprised?

I do believe the huge Howell brouhaha (Post Ombudsman) revolved around Schmidt's assertion that dems took lots of Abramoff money, specifically that directed by him to dems, and by implication, that there are those, like Harry Reid, the Kennedy congressman, and others, who are just as dirty as the pugs on this

this is highly insulting BS

on Schimdt and Clinton

''Having read the first couple of chapters of the new book "Truth At Any Cost: Ken Starr and the Unmaking of Bill Clinton" by Susan Schmidt and Michael Weisskopf, I can see that Messrs. Schmidt and Weisskopf are following in the "proud" tradition of Bob Woodward in telling a "story" instead of practicing journalism.

It makes one wonder whether this counter-charge to recent "pro-Clinton" books really belongs more in the category of historical fiction.''

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20000502Schmidt.html

If not, why?

the mediawhoresonline.com campaign to expose schmidt (schmidt was sending notices to rw corporate employers when letters opposed to bush were sent to washington post, which cost letter writers jobs etc) caused the slimy pigmediawhore alot of stress, it appears, and she became very quiet since then (unfortunately, it appears the blowback from MWO's campaign destroyed mediawhoresonline!)
susan schmidt should be tried for treason, and put away in jail for rest of life; she's been an active seditionist since clinton era (in 'The Hunting of the President' schmidt is mentioned a dozen times - she was very active in trying to frame clinton, and cost the president time and lotsa money)

I truly miss media whores online. that's, of course, the provenance for me, whenever I think of that particular term

it really stuns me that such an error filled bit of, when all is said and done, GOP apologia/deflection wins another Janet Cooke Award

I can't wait til she goes on a callin show to celebrate

I got her twice on the radio, re: E. Jean Lewis' perjurious testimony, about which she LIED, saying the Post covered it, after Schmidt left the morning session. She claimed, on the radio, that a Post reporter was there for her afternoon swoon, and it was in the next day's paper

it was NOT, Lewis' clear perjury was never mentioned in the Post

that pos was given some 'director of bush's farts' administration job of some kind since then(!)....sickening...the pulitzer is garbage if a long time trickster like susan schmidt is rewarded!
btw the l jean lewis fainting spell in front of the whitewater committee you mention:
"But Sarbanes had scarcely begun when a remarkable thing happened. Lewis began suddenly to tremble visibly. Tears welled in her eyes, and she fainted dead away at the witness table. After being revived, she had to be assisted from the senate chamber, hospitalized overnight, and treated for high blood pressure. L Jean Lewis's career as Whitewater heroine had come to an abrupt and seemingly ignominious end. Her appearance before the D'Amato (Whitewater) committee had been a complete disaster." -pg 197 'The Hunting of the President'
was unnoticed by the media! As Conason and Lyons note following the above paragraph 'Both the NYtimes and the Washington Post failed to mention her sudden collapse' this despite the fact thousands had watched the entire episode on c-span!
(for anyone who doesn't know, l jean lewis was the official in the 'resolution and trust corporation' a temporary federal agency set up by the 1st bush administration to bail out the savings and loans depositors and liquidate the assets seized by the federal government. Lewis was neither a lawyer nor a CPA, but described herself as a 'conservative republican' who hated bill clinton - whom she called a 'lying bastard'....she thought she had dirt on the clintons, but of course nothing was ever proved. and she was susan schmidt/washpost's main informant regarding the whitewater deal-in which the clinton's lost $65000!)

the Post covered it, but they didn't

I have a videotape somewhere of the Jim Bohannon radio show (it was on CSPAN that day), on which she appeared with lefty (or is it righty?) Weisskof, during which I brought up the Lewis fiasco. she said she didn't stick around after the lunch break, but that she was sure somebody at the Post was there to cover it. As you note, NObody did.

so many of the same deperate characters who spent $10's of millions to frame president clinton first got together during that shoddy affair...if the entire scheme was investigated, then almost the entire cast of creeps who midwifed the bozobush administration on the world would be exposed...notice they took good care of lewis!

chief among them the realization that it was Whitewater that laid the groundwork for the campaign to "restore honor and dignity to the White House."

may those bastards, and I mean YOU, David Bossie, deathbed interloper:

Always hoped that it would reemerge.

resource?

which is perhaps how they want it. If I recall, theirs was going to be a haitus (with hope that they would come back.) I would guess that during that time other outlets came on-line, such as Media Matters ... and filled the void, allowing those behind it to know that they had started a movement - but were not obligated to continue to turn their own lives upside down (you refer to backlash above). This is PURE speculation on my part, I have no idea what happened. And while I very much appreciate Media Matters - there was something about the informal, warrior like tone of the Red Alerts - that I miss. Hope that those who were behind the site know how much they were appreciated, that they helped to push many people into informal activism (a legacy that lasts), and that they are sorely missed.

read, and it had an impact, as well.

they really raised the hackles of the worst in the whoredom pantheon; that's how you knew they were effective

here's the Howell article, and a prescient blog on the shameless WPost campaign for Schmidt's completely undeserved :prize:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/14/AR2006011400859.html

http://64.177.181.84/2006/01/listen-to-what-i-say-not-what-i-do.html

The Washington Post has escaped the bitter travails that have provoked so much criticism of its arch rival, The New York Times.

But that doesn't mean the paper, which has had trouble veiling a severe case of schadenfreude, isn't capable of being just as idiotic and shooting itself in the foot.The Post's absurd media snafu began January 15 when the paper's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, penned a paen to Susan Schmidt, "Getting the Story on Jack Abramoff" and equally tarred both major political parties for the accepting money from lobbying puppet master Jack Abramoff, the super lobbyist.

Howell's piece, which smells a lot like the launch of a Pulitzer campaign, hit a nerve as it adhered to Republican talking points and negated Democratic efforts to steal a page from Newt Gingrich's 1994 playbook - use accusations of corruption by the party in power to win back control of Congress.

Reaction was immediate and heartfelt. Readers posted more than 700 comments, many of them attacking Howell and assailing her for condoning what bloggers called Schmidt's GOP stenography skills. The Post responded even more inappropriately than The Times did to its misjudgements. Instead of arguing its point or acknowledging a mistake, the paper decided to become a censor by deleting the comments. Then it tuned out the public by shutting down the section for readers' feedback and issuing a statement over the signature of its executive editor.

EDIT: this most perspicacious blog credits DU farther down for capturing the deleted responses to the Postblog's editing job!

great blog....glad I found it

for rereading when I get in my misty I Miss The Horse moments.

they really exposed her for what she was during THOTP

reading.

just like a professional stenographer: quick and "accurate"....accurately quoting the fascist line, that is

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=1558

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/003143.php

Susan Schmidt is known, happily among DC Republicans and not so happily among DC Democrats, as what you might call the "Mikey" (a la Life Cereal fame) of the DC press corps, especially when the cereal is coming from Republican staffers. This morning she has an article on the Senate intel report and Joe Wilson, specifically focusing on the relevance of Wilson's reporting on Niger (the report says analysts did not see Wilson's findings as weakening claims that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger) and his wife's role in recommending him for the assignment.

We'll discuss the broader issues of Plame's role in Wilson's assignment and the underlying question of the alleged Iraq-Niger negotiations. A clearer-eyed take on Wilson and report can be found here in this story by Knight Ridder. But for now a few points on Schmidt's treatment.

In her fourth paragraph Schmidt writes that "contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."

This is one of those cases in which it's helpful to actually read the report rather than just run with what you've got from the majority committee staffer who gave you the spin.

Whoopie Doo...for Steno Sue!

(yep...sadly she did win one. But Pulitzer's heirs and maybe he, himself were really conservative and have their own skeletons.) :-(

Best not to look at it as what it might seem... It's kind of a list of the dishonorable.....when one looks back and has a certain knowledge...:-(