Clinton, Drudge and blame shifting Posted by: McQ
on Tuesday, February 26, 2008
It is sometimes fun to wander through the fever swamps on the left to see what has their briefs in a bunch today. And for some, it seems, it's that nasty old Drudge and his muckraking slander which has a certain portion of that part of the sphere grinding their teeth. Jerome Armstrong of My DD leads the collective charge:
Wow, how does it feel now for some bloggers, having crossed the line from representing a voice for progressive values to parroting the legitimization of Drudge Report as a news vehicle. It's a sad day when any Democratic candidate have to deny any report on Drudge, lest they be called guilty without any proof.
I can see someone arguing 'anything goes' and 'whatever it takes' in their desire to see a candidate nominated. But you need to ask yourself at what cost? Drudge has done this twice now this campaign season. It's worse this time though, as we have plenty of progressive bloggers that fell in line too, legitimizing Drudge Report in a false smear.
Drudge is a pox on the house of Democrats. It is a rightwing crap site that spews rumors designed to tear democrats down and divide us. I don't read it, link to it, or believe anything from that site. Everyone here ought to feel the same way on this subject, right? We are all agreed?
Oh, absolutely. And we won't link or read anything else you decide "legitimizes" a "crap site". Just provide the list fearless leader.
Of course, of special note is the fact that not all his commenters, to their eternal credit, are buying into the blinders he's proposing. And in fact, one of them provides some interesting info, of which, apparently Armstrong wasn't aware. From an Oct. 21st NYT article:
As Senator Barack Obama prepared to give a major speech on Iraq one morning a few weeks ago, a flashing red-siren alert went up on the Drudge Report Web site. It read, “Queen of the Quarter: Hillary Crushes Obama in Surprise Fund-Raising Surge,” and, “$27 Million, Sources Tell Drudge Report.”
Within minutes, the Drudge site had injected Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s fund-raising success into the day’s political news on the Internet and cable television. It did not halt coverage of Mr. Obama’s speech or his criticism of her vote to authorize the war in 2002, but along the front lines of the campaign — the hourly, intensely fought effort to capture the news cycle or deny ownership of it to the other side — it was a telling assault.
Mrs. Clinton’s aides declined to discuss how the Drudge Report got access to her latest fund-raising figures nearly 20 minutes before the official announcement went to supporters. But it was a prime example of a development that has surprised much of the political world: Mrs. Clinton is learning to play nice with the Drudge Report and the powerful, elusive and conservative-leaning man behind it.
But, typical of a campaign with a reputation for exploiting every advantage and trying to neutralize every disadvantage, Mrs. Clinton’s communications team, led by Howard Wolfson, is not leaving Mr. Drudge to the Republicans. Five current and former Democratic officials said Mrs. Clinton has on her side the closest thing her party has ever had to Mr. Rhoades in Tracy Sefl, a former Democratic National Committee official, who has established a friendly working relationship with Mr. Drudge — and through whom Mrs. Clinton’s campaign often worked quietly to open a line of communication.
Sounds very Clintonesque to me and completely believeable, just as the release of the Obama "dressed" picture yesterday is something I find completely compatible with the combination of Clinton and desperation. And again, it should be noted, that while there's been a lot of "darned if I know" when asked if it was produced by someone on the Clinton team, there's been no official denial.
But, on another level, it is interesting to me that, as with the blaming of the media for Clinton's demise by Ed Rendell, we have a segment of the leftosphere all ready to blame someone else for the Obama picture flap than the increasingly apparent perpetrator.
Drudge is the problem - not Clinton. Classic blame shifting.
If you were going to e-mail something to Drudge that’s *supposed* to be harmful to the Obama campaign and the issue centers on race, ethnicity or religion, are you really going to identify yourself as being with the Clinton campaign, knowing full well that it’s going to come back at you? Extremely doubtful. If anything, you’re going to use an anonymous e-mail account to disseminate something as obnoxious (intent-wise) as that photo.
Not saying the Obama camp had anything to do with this but it’s extremely unlikely that someone involved with the Clinton campaign was involved. In fact, the fact that somebody said "Oh, and by the way, I’m with the Clinton campaign" in the email makes it quite likely that it was sent by an Obama supporter somewhere - who I’m sure is having a huge laugh at this point.