Why does the Washington Post hate Social Security?

A person could get the impression that the Washington Post hates to see regular people with retirement security.

Consider that they want to raid their production workers' pension fund as a precondition to negotiating over giving them their first raise in five years. Consider that last October, an unsigned editorial harshed on Hillary Clinton for not wanting to "fix" a system that was "not sustainable", or that this July, one of their reporters misrepresented Obama's and McCain's positions on Social Security in order to suggest that everyone believes the system is "fragile." Consider their in-house columnist, Ruth Marcus.

Marcus was sitting on a panel this March when she declared that the 10 smartest Democrats and 10 smartest Republicans could fix Social Security in two hours if they were all put in a room together for that purpose. Is she ignorant of the fact that the 10 smartest Republicans have spent the last few years trying to dismantle Social Security? One would hope not. She is a DC-based political columnist for the Washington Post, after all.

She might also have noticed that the Republican plan to turn Social Security into an oxymoron by replacing it with the stock market (Does she ever read the business section of the paper she works for?) was universally unpopular with seniors, people who will be seniors in short order, and people who plan on growing up to be seniors someday. If she did know, she neglected to mention it.

Today, Marcus had fun bashing Social Security in the Post's pages once again, while taking swipes at Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a book review, emphasis mine:

There's more...

"Flag City" Just Another Media Myth About Obama

From today's Beyond Chron.

Yesterday's Washington Post had a front-page piece on Findlay, Ohio - the "Flag City" - where small-town voters in the ultimate swing state still believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim.  What the Post didn't report is that Findlay voted 2-1 for George Bush in 2004, and in 2006 rejected Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown (who won a landslide victory statewide.)  It's just the latest example of the media projecting the myth that the Presidential race is somehow close, and grasping for non-existent trends to keep it alive.

But reality says otherwise.  Women and Latinos who supported Hillary Clinton are flocking to Obama, despite the narrative that Democrats are "divided." State-by-state polls consistently show Obama on his way to surpassing 270 electoral votes - with hints that November could become a rout.  Even national polls with Obama ahead by double digits are dismissed as "outliers," along with the constant reminder that Michael Dukakis blew a 17-point lead (without any context of two very different candidates).  The media won't admit that the Presidential race is over, and Obama is going to win.

There's more...

WaPo: Superdelegates aren't paying attention to Clinton

The Washington Post's Paul Kane, a congressional reporter, had a revealing Q&A today that gives some brutally honest insight into the current situation of the undecided superdelegates and the candidate currently pinning her last hopes on their endorsements.

Washington: Looking at the most recent Rasmussen daily polls, I see that Hillary manages a tie today against McCain, but Barack is down by five points to McCain. What piqued my interest was that while Hillary had a "highly unfavorable" rating of 32 percent (i.e., as I see it, people who never will vote for her) Barack was at 35 percent. On Jan. 30, as we entered primary season's main show, Barack's "highly unfavorables" were 20 percent and Clinton's were 35 percent. Is this something superdelegates may be watching?

Paul Kane: I've spent the past several months talking to as many super-delegates as any reporter in America, I'd guess, since I cover on a day-to-day basis about 280 of them here on Capitol Hill.

I hate saying this, because all the Clinton people are going to flip out and say, You're biased, you're biased, you're biased. So go ahead and flip out if you want, but the simple basic truth is that the super-delegates stopped paying attention to the Clinton-Obama race about a couple days after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.

They've stopped paying attention to the primary, and instead they're focused on an Obama-McCain matchup in November. That's the basic, simple, definitive reality that has happened in this race. The "undecided" super-delegates at this moment are not going to "decide" any time soon, because to them the race is over, they're just waiting for Clinton to drop out.

Later on in the Q&A, the topic was broached again, this time from the "who's more electable in the fall" position that Clinton has been floating to the media:

Centreville, Va.: I was surprised and disappointed that The Post did not seem to address the Gallup poll yesterday which seemed to say Hillary Clinton had somewhat of an advantage over Barack Obama in the so-called swing states. The news of that poll was bandied about all day on the political blogs, and I have to say the Obama supporters seemed to be getting the worst of it. (Or is it "worse" with only two candidates in the poll?)

washingtonpost.com: Hillary Clinton's Swing-State Advantage (Gallup, May 28)

Paul Kane: Again, don't yell at me because I'm only the messenger here. But the super-delegates have moved on, they're no longer looking at how Hillary Clinton fares in battleground states against McCain. This is very hard for Clinton supporters to hear, I'm sorry, but the super-delegates are not paying attention to your candidate anymore. These head-to-head matchup polls (Clinton v. McCain, Obama v. McCain) are not having the impact on people's thinking anymore.

Mr. Kane's remarks jibe remarkably well with the general truth of the matter - that elections aren't decided by theoretical matchups 6 months down the road. Polls from that far out simply aren't reliable on any measure. And the superdelegates know that.

Note that Mr. Kane isn't responding with his own assessment of the primary race - he's simply bearing the truth about how the superdelegates see it. Considering that Clinton's arguments have been directed squarely at this group, its a telling situation that they're not making the effect Clinton was hoping for.

To ward off cries of bias, I'm going to include a Q&A about the general tone of the election and the supporters on both sides. This part is purely personal opinion on the part of Kane, so if you're upset about the above two statements, hopefully this will help put his own viewpoint in perspective:

Lashing out?: Why? I know that there are many out there who vastly prefer Sen. Clinton to Sen. Obama. I know they think that she's more qualified and better-equipped to beat John McCain in the general election. I know they think that Clinton has been unfairly treated by the media and that the primary system is all screwed up. I've heard all their arguments. And I don't doubt that they genuinely believe all of these things. My question, though, is this: What realistic outcome are they still holding out for?

Paul Kane: They want their candidate to win. I'm not sure they know how that outcome would occur, but they want Clinton to win, it's that simple. If Obama was losing this campaign by just as narrow a margin, his supporters would be just as upset. It's important for Obama supporters to realize just how narrow a victory he appears to have pulled off, rather than running around the country acting like they blew out Clinton. If she had been semi-competitive in the post-Super Tuesday states in February -- rather than losing them all 60-40 or worse -- it's highly possible she would be the nominee.

There's more...

Forward the Unf**kables!



Update:I received an email from someone claiming to be Michael Wolff pointing out that I use 'Richard' several times in this essay. Ooops! He got me! Chalk it up to a bad pain day. Most of you know I'm usually vigilant when it comes to details like this - but sometimes, when the pain gets really bad, the back of my brain takes over. I was thinking about the TV pundit Richard Wolff (the Wolff I know best). It just came out - and for that I am sorry. If I'm eviscerating the man - I should at the very least get his name right! So thank you MICHAEL Wolff for the correction. That took courage.

A few weeks ago I read an article in Vanity Fair that really scorched my shorts.  I was so pissed off, I had to think about it a while - let it simmer, so to speak - see if the pot came to full boil.  Well it did.  I'd say I'm well and truly `boiled' now.  In fact - the more I think about it the `prime-ier' I get.  Why this particular diatribe?  Out of the encyclopedia of `I Hate Hillary's' littered like smashed walnuts on the side of the road - why did this pop my kettle?  The complete and utter denigration and dismissal of women in general.  Call it the final straw - the last nail in the coffin - one insult too far.  You see - Michael Wolff has declared us over 50 types unfuckable - and you know what that means: invisibility to the point of shunning (he even uses that word!).  Guess we can all go home now girls - at least those of us in what the opposite gender sees as peri-(pathetic) menopause.  We are now officially invisible - except for Hillary, of course.  She's still out there - plugging away - but it's only a matter of time.  She's fading - shrinking towards germ status (with any male handy the prescribed antibiotic).  The estimable and oh so quip worthy Mr. Wolff has pronounced her persona non grata, so - behold the unfuckable woman!


There's more...

WaPost Highlights Afrosphere Views

In discussing Black online opinion about the Democratic presidential campaign, Teresa Will of the Washington Post writes,

In these YouTubian times, there's a certain peril in conducting a multi-city stand-up comedy tour: Punch lines precede their progenitor. Which is to say, you probably already heard about Chris Rock's take on Hillary Clinton: "I think America's ready for a woman president, I really do -- but does it have to be that woman?" Or that he thinks John McCain is as old as dirt: "I don't need [a president] with a bucket list." And for weeks, the afrosphere been abuzz over Rock's oh-no-he-didn't take on Barack Obama's biggest handicap: "He has a black wife. . . . If Barack Obama really wants to be president, he needs to get him a white girl." WaPost

( . . . )

But here, in the nation's capital, Rock's political jokes took on a certain pointedness: "There, I said it. In Washington, D.C." And he had sharp words for Hillary Clinton's African American supporters ("We hate ourselves that much").

There, in the second row, was George Stephanopoulos, sliding farther and farther down in his seat but laughing nonetheless, even at the Hillary and Bill jokes. And there, in the third row, was political pundit Roland Martin, chortling and raising his hand in the air, shouting, "Right, right, right!"WaPost, (Citation to afrosphere definition added.)


Well, I wish the afrosphere reference had explained more clearly what they afrosphere is.  (The "afrosphere" is Black people self-determination bloggers and e-mailers and others online, not Black people regardless of whether we are online or not.)   However, this citation shows that we CAN define ourselves in the national media, by using terms that catch on.  (See "Is Your Blog Part of the Afrosphere/Blackosphere Movement?"  See also, "Exodus Mentality". See also, "Blackosphere v. Whitosphere: Silence is Never Golden."

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads