The uncritical media Posted by: McQ
on Saturday, November 08, 2008
Nina Easton of Fortune carelessly perpetuates the myth Obama put forward in his book "Dreams of My Father" in order to claim "CEO" bonafides for Obama (article is entitled "CEO in Chief"):
Barack Obama's first job out of college, in 1983, was at the corporate consulting firm Business International Corp. in Manhattan. He started as a researcher but quickly rose to the position of financial writer. He had a Reuters computer screen on his desk, with emerald messages blinking from around the globe. He had his own office and a secretary and wore a suit and tie and carried a briefcase. He wrote about interest rate swaps and met with Japanese financiers and German bond traders.
When he caught his image in the shiny elevator doors, he sometimes imagined himself as a "captain of industry, barking out orders, closing the deal," he writes in his memoir.
Those moments soon passed, overwhelmed by pangs of guilt that he wasn't following the call to be a community organizer, helping poor neighborhoods ravaged by corporate and government neglect. Inside these business trappings, the 22-year-old Columbia University graduate felt like a "spy behind enemy lines."
It is based on this passage from Obama's book, "Dreams of My Father":
… And so, in the months leading up to graduation, I wrote to every civil rights organization I could think of, to any black elected official in the country with a progressive agenda, to neighborhood councils and tenant rights groups. When no one wrote back, I wasn’t discouraged. I decided to find more conventional work for a year, to pay off my student loans and maybe even save a little bit. I would need the money later, I told myself. Organizers didn’t make any money; their poverty was proof of their integrity.
Eventually a consulting house to multinational corporations agreed to hire me as a research assistant. Like a spy behind enemy lines, I arrived every day at my mid-Manhattan office and sat at my computer terminal, checking the Reuters machine that blinked bright emerald messages from across the globe. As far as I could tell I was the only black man in the company, a source of shame for me but a source of considerable pride for the company’s secretarial pool. They treated me like a son, those black ladies; they told me how they expected me to run the company one day…
Nevertheless, as the months passed, I felt the idea of becoming an organizer slipping away from me. The company promoted me to the position of financial writer. I had my own office, my own secretary, money in the bank. Sometimes, coming out of an interview with Japanese financiers or German bond traders, I would catch my reflection in the elevator doors-see myself in a suit and tie, a briefcase in my hand-and for a split second I would imagine myself as a captain of industry, barking out orders, closing the deal, before I remembered who it was that I had told myself I wanted to be and felt pangs of guilt for my lack of resolve.
Then one day, as I sat down at my computer to write an article on interest-rate swaps, something unexpected happened. Auma called. I had never met this half sister; we had written only intermittently…
[A] few months after Auma called, I turned in my resignation at the consulting firm and began looking in earnest for an organizing job…
As we reported a few months back, all of this is a flight of fancy by Obama. His coworkers at that time seem to remember all of that completely differently. Dan Armstrong:
First, it wasn’t a consulting house; it was a small company that published newsletters on international business. Like most newsletter publishers, it was a bit of a sweatshop. I’m sure we all wished that we were high-priced consultants to multinational corporations. But we also enjoyed coming in at ten, wearing jeans to work, flirting with our co-workers, partying when we stayed late, and bonding over the low salaries and heavy workload.
Barack worked on one of the company’s reference publications. Each month customers got a new set of pages on business conditions in a particular country, punched to fit into a three-ring binder. Barack’s job was to get copy from the country correspondents and edit it so that it fit into a standard outline. There was probably some research involved as well, since correspondents usually don’t send exactly what you ask for, and you can’t always decipher their copy. But essentially the job was copyediting.
[...]
If Barack was promoted, his new job responsibilities were more of the same - rewriting other people’s copy. As far as I know, he always had a small office, and the idea that he had a secretary is laughable. Only the company president had a secretary. Barack never left the office, never wore a tie, and had neither reason nor opportunity to interview Japanese financiers or German bond traders.
As to the passage where it is claimed he wrote about interest rate swaps, etc, Armstrong says:
What Barack means here is that he got copy from a correspondent who didn’t understand interest rate swaps, and he was trying to make sense out of it.
Bill Millar, who also worked in that office with Obama remembers:
I can tell you this: even though I was an assistant editor (big doings at this “consulting firm”) and he was, well, he was doing something there, he certainly treated me like something less than an equal.
Funny thing… A journalism/political science major… Writing about finance… Pretending in his book to be an expert on interest rate swaps.
I remember trying to explain the nuance of these instruments to him in the cramped three Wang terminal space we called the bull pen. In contrast to his his liberal arts background, I had a degree in finance and Wall Street experience, so I knew what I was talking about.
But rather than learn from a City College kid, the Ivy Leaguer just sort of rolled his eyes. Condescendingly. I’ll never forget it. God forbid he leave the impression that a mere editor like myself knew more about something than did Barack.
He was like that…
But the myth stands, and it is useful to trot out to calm the fears of those who have a sneaking suspicion they've been snookered, but can't quite put their finger on the reason. So the dutiful media, on cue, reinforces the myth and "saves America" once again.
Anyone - do you suppose Nina Easton took the time to contact Obama's old employer to verify his story or, heaven forbid, actually stop by the place to see for herself?
Heh ... what am I talking about - that would be journalism. And that's much harder than uncritically repeating something without checking it out first.
Those moments soon passed, overwhelmed by pangs of guilt that he wasn’t following the call to be a community organizer, helping poor neighborhoods ravaged by corporate and government neglect. Inside these business trappings, the 22-year-old Columbia University graduate felt like a "spy behind enemy lines."
Only a liberal could get away with saying "I felt called to public service." Sarah Palin talks about God moving in mysterious ways, and says "let’s pray for God’s will in Iraq" and she’s a complete whackadoodle.
Obama is called to public service, and it’s precious. Ugh.
Next year, when he’s sitting behind that desk in the most famous office in the world in his suit and tie, meeting with Japanese and German diplomats, I certainly hope he doesn’t start feeling like a "spy behind enemy lines."
It still stands that this media helped to elect a man that few, if any, Americans know anything about. Black people voted for him because he was black; white people voted for him because they bought into his "change" and "hope" malarkey.
To me, it is the same as buying a house you have seen only pictures of, or maybe not even seen at all. How can you do that without looking at the place, seeing its history, what it can deliver, the neighborhood it is in? Of course you can’t do that - but the American people did just now by elected an absolute question mark to the presidency of this country, in a time of war.
That, to me, is what is most frightening. When Obama starts to carry out his program, I fully expect many people, including the whites who voted for him (the blacks will stick with him the same way they stuck with Clinton), how they could have been so stupid as to vote for a man for President of whom they knew not little about, but nothing. They voted for a slogan. And slogans are usually 99% bullcrappola and 1% horsesh!t.
From the Project for Excellence in Journalism http://www.journalism.org/node/13436
Hmm... Fox had the most balanced coverage between the two candidates.
*Newspapers coded: The New York Times The Washington Post Los Angeles Times USA Today The Wall Street Journal Philadelphia Inquirer Chicago Tribune Arkansas Democrat-Gazette San Francisco Chronicle New Hampshire Union-Leader MetroWest Daily News The Gazette (Colorado Springs) Modesto Bee
I think that once the emotion of voting for the first black president or voting to punish Bush was over, I think some people starting to think critically again by the next day. Then the stockmarket fell 1000 pts.
I think buyer’s remorse is already setting in. Hence the need for this story only days after the fact.
A: My answer to the attempts to go 1992 all over again.
Maybe Democrats did not react well to GWB, they were not gracious nor willing to give him a chance, and mostly that was a reaction to how Republicans treated Bill Clinton. No quarter given.
But then 9/11 happened, and GWB had a 92% approval rating, and he was given a chance by Americans, including Democrats. What happened after that was entirely the result of Bush’s decisions, not the ingraciousness of Democrats. He really had the environment to have become one of our greatest Presidents. Democrats did not prevent that, it was his to lose, and he did.
Republicans (and their unaffiliated supporter) can choose to go down this road, again, to the detriment of the country.
Maybe Democrats did not react well to GWB, they were not gracious nor willing to give him a chance, and mostly that was a reaction to how Republicans treated Bill Clinton. No quarter given.
But then 9/11 happened, and GWB had a 92% approval rating, and he was given a chance by Americans, including Democrats. What happened after that was entirely the result of Bush’s decisions, not the ingraciousness of Democrats. He really had the environment to have become one of our greatest Presidents. Democrats did not prevent that, it was his to lose, and he did
Fine. Following that standard, I’ll treat Obama like the piece of garbage he is until he allows another 9/11 to happen. Then I’ll support him for about 10 minutes and then spend the next 7 years yelling about various Obama lies and war crimes and how he should be impeached.
You are being too hard on my man Barack. I give you my solemn and complete assurances that Barack will rule his country almost as well as I rule my own. This I swear on the graves of my ancestors and on my fallen comrades honor. As one president for life for another, you have my word.
There was no concern - none - about "detriment" to country when the left was doing it was there?
Americans gave GWB an Approval rating averaging around 75% well into 2003. He had the Congress, he had the Senate. He passed every initiative he wanted to pass through that period, including a couple of invasions. GWB’s decisions, and GWB’s decisions ALONE, were the cause of his ensuing unpopularity, not the dissention of Democrats.
If you don’t think our current situation is as dangerous to our way of life as the 9/11 attacks, you are deluding yourself.
But hey, the left did it, so screw the country, you have bigger fish to fry, namely acting just like the people you held in such disdain for acting the way they did.
This would be a good time to point out something about noses, faces, and spite, but hey, whatever.
Cal: But whatever the outcome, I hope that people on my side of the ideological divide won’t start working to undermine a President Obama, and I would have the same hope about your side should we elect a President McCain. We had enough people, in 2000 and in 2004, saying George W. Bush "isn’t my president" and threatening to move to Canada or overseas. If the Republicans lose, I hope the party accepts defeat more graciously. Though they would benefit from self-examination.
Bob: Hear, hear.
Cal: It is in the interest of all Americans to recover from this housing and monetary downturn and to end these two wars in a way that will solidify freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan and restore our financial strength. Anyone wishing for anything less cares less about the country. They prefer partisan advantage at the nation’s expense. Let’s hope the country can unite behind the new president.
Bob: The old World War II adage seems appropriate here: We are all in this together. A healthy economy and a successful foreign policy benefit everyone. We have big decisions to make in everything from Iraq to health care. Both parties need each other on board to sell new ideas and a new direction to the voters. A Democrat or Republican plan alone will never attract the broad-based support these new proposals demand. It is smart politics to find allies, even among those you may not need.
Common Ground How to Stop the Partisan War That Is Destroying America By Cal Thomas, Bob Beckel
Inspired by their popular USA Today column, conservative Cal Thomas and liberal Bob Beckel show politicians of both stripes how to get beyond partisanship, restore civility, and move our country forward. Thomas and Beckel are a unique pair in today’s political climate—pundits from opposite sides who not only talk to each other but work together to find common ground on some of the most divisive issues facing us, from the war in Iraq to gay marriage to the Patriot Act. Common Ground unmasks the hypocrisy of many of the issues, organizations, and individuals who created and deepened the partisan divide at the center of American politics, and makes a strategic case for why this bickering must stop.
Throughout, Thomas and Beckel explode conventional wisdom and offer surprising new conclusions:
The Red State/Blue State divide: Myth! A "common ground" presidential candidate can win in 2008: Reality! "Polarizers" like Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are the future of political debate: Myth! Major-party politics faces extinction: Reality!
These guys should know. For years Beckel and Thomas contributed to the climate of polarization in Washington . . . and they admit it. "We’re two guys who spent a lot of years in the polarizing business, but on opposing sides," they write. "We helped write the game plan, and we have participated in everything from getting money out of true believers to appearing on television to help spread the contentious message. In many cases, we wrote the message. We know the gig, and it’s just about up."
In this much-needed book, Thomas and Beckel go beyond their column to offer a sobering overview of the current political divide and its corrosive effect on us all.They also explain how bipartisanship and consensus politics are not only good for the day-to-day democratic process but essential for our nation’s future well-being.
Entertaining and informative, funny and healing, Common Ground is must reading for all concerned citizens.
Americans gave GWB an Approval rating averaging around 75% well into 2003. He had the Congress, he had the Senate. He passed every initiative he wanted to pass through that period, including a couple of invasions. GWB’s decisions, and GWB’s decisions ALONE, were the cause of his ensuing unpopularity, not the dissention of Democrats.
Calling the president of the US a "loser" in front of school kids isn’t "dissention", is it? The attacks, disrespect and downright meanness displayed by DEMOCRATS had nothing to do with "dissention" and you know it. Dissention deals with issues and policies and provides valid arguments against them.
Meanspirited personal attacks against the president aren’t dissention. I know what "dissention" is, and what Reid, Pelosi, Dean, Durbin and any many other DEMOCRATS did was not dissention.
So don’t whine when your side deservedly receives what it so enjoyed delivering for 8 years.
Calling the president of the US a "loser" in front of school kids isn’t "dissention", is it?
No, it’s not.
But again, Bush had us, he had almost every American behind him. No one was calling him names when he we rallied to support him. He could have done amazing things, he could have been one of the best President’s ever. No one is to blame for his slide but him, and the decisions he made.
I am saying that we are at point that is far more dangerous to our way of life than the 9/11 attacks, and like Bush did, Obama could fail, he could lose our trust and approval. But you seem to want to skip right past that and go for all attack, all the time, as if he had already made the kinds of decisions that brought Bush from a 92% approval to 25% approval.
If that’s what you think is important to our country right now, then there’s not much more to say.
But you might consider giving the guy a chance, not for Democrats certainly, not for yourself, not for your readership, but for higher reasons.
But again, Bush had us, he had almost every American behind him.
But again, that’s no excuse is it?
So strap on the helmet and put away the "that’s unfair" or "that’s an insult" come backs. I just don’t want to hear it from Democrats or their supporters because they’ve done nothing to deserve respect nor a change in the rules they set for 8 years.
Life’s a bitch and then there is payback.
But you might consider giving the guy a chance, not for Democrats certainly, not for yourself, not for your readership, but for higher reasons.
He stands for everything I oppose. Not he personally, but his policy ideas. "Spread the wealth"? Sorry, no sale. Global Warming w/cap and trade? Economy buster.
Supports union card check? Huh uh. Universal health care? Destruction of our health industry.
About the only area I’m willing to see what he can do is foreign affairs and my guess he’s not going to be any great shakes there either.
Of course there’s also the fact that Democrats and the left have only suddenly discovered a need for "higher reasons" with which to call for support of their candidate. They couldn’t find it in themselves for 8 years to support such "reasons" in the midst of 2 wars though, could they?
But now - the hypocrites want to appeal to "higher reasons" for their guy? He11 no.
But again, Bush had us, he had almost every American behind him. No one was calling him names when he we rallied to support him.
complete BS, the attacks against him started days after 9/11. Movies were rushed into production to attack the admin. You guys NEVER ever supported any action taken EVER. How many of Moore’s movies did you see post 9/11. I bet all.
I remember quite well the attacks from the left on the decision to go into Afstan. It started immediately.
But now - the hypocrites want to appeal to "higher reasons" for their guy? He11 no.
You gotta do what you gotta do.
I remember quite well the attacks from the left on the decision to go into Afstan. It started immediately.
Who on the left? It certainly wasn’t many, maybe the fringe. Is that who you want to emulate?
What am I saying, of course it is, that’s been clear all along, you are the right’s version of Code Pink.
I never saw McQ in that light though, and I am still hopeful he is not committed to that level of shrillness.
So I am calling you a liar and a hypocrite.
Coming from you that means so... little.
You got the wrong guy. I was all for Afghanistan, as were 88% of Americans, and leading up to Iraq, I was in favor of the invasion upon showing solid current proof of the existence of any one of the claims of significant quantities of weapons. I’ve been as likely to oppose the fringe of the left as I have the right.
You are talking about people like A.N.S.W.E.R. and Anti-Capitalist Convergence, who did indeed oppose the Afghan invasion early on, and were the far fringes of ideology, and not remotely related to any political party. But hey, if these are people you want to emulate, knock yourself out.
"Maybe Democrats did not react well to GWB, they were not gracious nor willing to give him a chance, and mostly that was a reaction to how Republicans treated Bill Clinton."
How old are you?
I have excellent reason for asking this question, although if you answer it, I don’t think you’re going to like it.
"But again, Bush had us, he had almost every American behind him. No one was calling him names when he we rallied to support him. He could have done amazing things, he could have been one of the best President’s ever. No one is to blame for his slide but him, and the decisions he made."
So, in other words, if Bush just would have behaved like a progressive, he’d be one of the best President’s ever. But since he didn’t, well, there you go.
So, in other words, if Bush just would have behaved like a progressive, he’d be one of the best President’s ever. But since he didn’t, well, there you go.
Those are other words, but not for what I was saying.
I don’t think this country is particularly progressive, so I don’t think progressive policies were required for Bush to have turned his popularity into a successful Presidency. Reagan wasn’t progressive and he was popular.
Having a conservative or progressive ideology does not mean that one is going to make good decisions, even if they base every action on their ideology. Most questions have far more than one answer, and far more than one answer that could satisfy progressives or conservatives. Was it a conservative answer to 9/11 to invade Iraq, sure, but it could have been a conservative answer not to invade Iraq as well. In the end, most Americans think it was just a bad answer.
In any case, it means that you ought to be able to recall how the left handled Ronald Ray-gun.
And since that premise of political retaliation is where you made your stand — under the flag of The Lying Bastard, no less — you’re dismissed.
I was really hoping for somthing a little more entertaining.
I was going to summarize a quick history, but you know it. I’ll just say that I disagree that the opposition to Reagan was comparable to the opposition to Clinton.
I have made my stand under the flag of my opinion, as have you. You call me a liar for my opinion, which of course, is ridiculous, but ridiculous is your stock in trade.
I would dismiss you, but you dismissed yourself long ago.
Cite that. Do you understand? Point out right here and now in front of everybody exactly where I did that.
So when you say that I am making a stand under a flag of "The Lying Bastard", I read that as you stating I am the lying bastard. If this was a rhetorical flourish, and you meant something else, you should have been more clear and you are welcome to clarify your statement.
Maybe in your world, "The Lying Bastard" is a household phrase that has a specific meaning, it means nothing to me except what the words say.
You have no room to complain about "ridiculous" all while you’re just making it up as you go along.
Cite that. Do you understand? Point out right here and now in front of everybody exactly where I made anything up.
Idiot. You don’t count, and for good reasons. Sit down and shut up.
Actually, you have it backwards, you have counted yourself out and have relegated yourself to a generally self-described position of a spectator and chronicler to the onslaught of your "endarkenment". I do more than take shots from the peanut gallery, I am actively engaged. I am sure you would say that I am actively engaged in rushing toward the "endarkenment", and you know what, you could be right, but if you are right, we’re drowning and you’re describing the water.
So you literally don’t count, but please, don’t sit down, and don’t shut up, I enjoy your description of the water.
Of course, if your method of communication is not undertstood as you intended, it must be a failure of the receiver, because you are incapable of (admitting) error.
"Of course, if your method of communication is not undertstood as you intended,..."
...it is not a warrant for you to say that I called you a liar. I did no such thing.
I made no mistake. And I can — and will — do this just as long as you try to keep blowing fog out your ass trying to make it go away. I made no mistake and no "error". Again, the fact: I said exactly what I had in mind. You’re the one who made up something that wasn’t there.
You did that. Nobody else.
This sort of thing is why my contempt for you is endless. You’re a useless moron who will not think, and there is nothing more despicable to me in the world.
...it is not a warrant for you to say that I called you a liar. I did no such thing.
You have clarified your statement, I accept the clarification, you were not calling me a liar. That you are sure that it needed no clarification begs the question, if I can understand the clarification, what makes you so sure the original statement was so precise?
I made no mistake.
Keep telling yourself that.
This sort of thing is why my contempt for you is endless. You’re a useless moron who will not think, and there is nothing more despicable to me in the world.
Your contempt is endless, period, and of the things for which nothing is more despicable to you, there seems to be a tie between me, and everything else in this world. I’m amazed you haven’t jumped off yet, you despise it so.
As for the sodomy offer, I’ll pass, you can f*ck yourself.
Again: it said exactly what I wanted to say. That’s what. Get it through your block head.
I am clear that you have stated that your previous statement is, even in retrospect, precisely how you wanted to express your opinion. But again, exactly what you said was imprecise, get that through your block head.
I acknowledge that I did not understand your statement as you intended it to be understood. Now that you have clarified, I think I understand now that "The Lying Bastard" is your pet name for Bill Clinton, but how was I supposed to know that you did not mean that you did not intend to infer that I was a lying bastard, by saying that I take a stand under the flag of the The Lying Bastard. For all I know, that could be some term you developed in your basement hours playing Dungeons and Dragons.
And the appropriate response to someone who misunderstands an imprecise comment is what, "f*ck you dead"?
How much room does that leave you when someone does something that’s actually egregious, "f*ck you more dead"?
Or, it could have gone like this...
In any case, it means that you ought to be able to recall how the left handled Ronald Ray-gun.
And since that premise of political retaliation is where you made your stand — under the flag of The Lying Bastard, no less — you’re dismissed.
I was going to summarize a quick history, but you know it. I’ll just say that I disagree that the opposition to Reagan was comparable to the opposition to Clinton.
I have made my stand under the flag of my opinion, as have you. You call me a liar for my opinion, which of course, is ridiculous, but ridiculous is your stock in trade.
You could have said this, which would have covered the dual points of being an insulting jerk, and addressing my argument...
I did not call you a liar for your opinion, asswipe, I said that you were making a claim under the flag of "The Lying Bastard", how could you not know that refers to Bill Clinton, idiot.
I know my history, sh*thead, and Reagan had far more investigations and attacks on him by left than Clinton ever had by the right, moron.
You’d have done a lot better by saying that. Except that it’s not true, which goes back to my original rebuttal to your point.
I disagree that the opposition to Reagan was comparable to the opposition to Clinton.
