I appreciate that Matt Drudge is in the tank for Obama, but this is a bit ridiculous.
I find it hard to believe that ABC News published the story, let alone the fact that Drudge is linking to it as his biggest story. It’s virtually inexplicable.
Unless Drudge has some angle on this that he has yet to reveal.
Otherwise, this is just silly.
[digg-reddit-me]The political cartoon by David Horsey of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer currently making the rounds (h/t Andrew Sullivan):
For all those who laughed when they saw this (like me) but are offended by the Obama New Yorker cover (unlike me) – how do you justify the differing responses?
My position is that I agree with the popular reddit post yesterday citing Donklephant:
That New Yorker cover is clearly satire. We can’t get offended every two minutes. It’s not healthy.
Is anyone offended by the New Yorker cover but appreciative of this faux National Review cover?
Update: Lenny Bruce wisely observed:
Satire is tragedy plus time. You give it enough time, the public, the reviewers will allow you to satirize it. Which is rather ridiculous, when you think about it.
This doesn’t excuse the double standard that I see as the only explanation for not being offended at both or by either picture – but it does offer an explanation as to why this is considered more offensive now than it might be otherwise.
Updated again: One thing, upon reflection, that differentiates the two cartoons is that David Horsey’s cartoon has the virtue of merely exaggerating the truth while the New Yorker cover is based on outright lies.
Still – I feel that this makes the depiction of McCain more damaging than the ridiculous depiction of Obama.
Mark Leibovich has a long piece in this weekend’s New York Times profiling Chris Matthews, bloviator extraordinaire and Holy Cross grad. This last fact is especially relevant because I tend to have a slightly irrational affection for prominent Holy Cross grad. ((For those unaware, the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, MA is my alma mater.)) Chris Matthews is no exception. Despite the attacks on him from various liberal sources including Media Matters and despite the fact that a number of liberal thinkers I admire point to Chris Matthews as exemplifying what is worst and most destructive in today’s media, I still like the guy. Of course – I don’t quite buy the premise – let’s call it the Glenn Greenwald premise – the blames the media more than any other source for our dysfunctional politics. I’ll be writing more about that as time goes on.
I’m a big fan of Mr. Greenwald – and even as I agree with most of the individual points he makes, and with his overall view of the larger political dysfunction, I disagree with the central thesis – of his blog and apparently his new book. I plan on reading his book in the next few weeks and posting my thoughts.
But for the moment, let’s appreciate one of the more entertaining characters in cable news, Chris Matthews, with a few excerpts from the Times piece:
There is a level of solipsism about Matthews that is oddly endearing in its self-conscious extreme, even by the standards of television vanity…
Sometimes during commercial breaks, Matthews will boast to Olbermann of having restrained himself during the prior segment. “And I reward him with a grape,” Olbermann says…
“I remember we were out hitchhiking once,” O’Regan told me. Matthews started arguing about Nixon and Vietnam. “It was just like watching his show today. Chris would ask a question, then he would answer it himself and then the person was invited to comment on Chris’s answer to his own question…”
By contrast, Matthews has called Obama “bigger than Kennedy” and compared the success of his campaign to “the New Testament.” His reviews of Obama’s speeches have been comically effusive at times, as when he described “this thrill going up my leg” after an Obama victory speech. (“Steady,” Olbermann cautioned him on the air.)