MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2024
Out of one silo, this: Let the word go forth to the nations! In large part, we agreed with the views expressed in a recent front-page piece by the New York Times' Rebecca Davis O'Brien.
(Note: This report has been delayed by one week due to last week's breakdown by our Internet Service Provider.)
When her piece appeared, O'Brien became the latest Times reporter to describe the state of play of the presidential campaign. She did so on Saturday, September 28, in a lengthy front-page report which appears online beneath this headline:
POLITICAL MEMO
Harris Has a Lot of Strengths. Giving Interviews Isn’t One of Them.
Online, this "Political Memo" had appeared on Thursday, September 26—two days earlier.
When that headline appeared, we agreed with its pair of assertions. We still agree that Candidate Harris has a lot of strengths. As of September 26, we also agreed that "giving interviews" hadn't recently seemed to be one of them.
We agreed with large parts of O'Brien's overall assessment! We'd call this her nugget statement:
In her dizzying ascent to the top of the Democratic ticket, Ms. Harris has proved to be a disciplined and effective debater and a tireless campaigner, nimble and energetic in rallies. But one-on-one televised interviews with journalists have long been a weakness in her political arsenal...
We agreed with that list of strengths. We also tended to agree with O'Brien's statement about that one weakness, though we aren't sure that this possible weakness stretches back into the past.
We also agreed with the trio of statements which follow. These are the sorts of observations O'Brien makes before her lengthy, front-page memo seems to go off the rails:
As a presidential candidate, Ms. Harris has largely eschewed such interviews.
Plainly, that was true at that time. Also, we largely agreed with this:
The avoidance appears to reflect a nervousness that is palpable from the moment Ms. Harris takes her seat across from an interviewer.
We thought we'd seen that nervousness too! For us, it seemed strangely inconsistent with the impressive self-assurance Harris displays when she delivers her speeches.
We definitely agreed with the following statement—but then, we regularly watch major programs on the Fox News Channel:
It has opened her up to mockery from her opponents and detractors.
There was no possible doubt about that! As of late September, Harris was being mocked and derided around the clock on Fox News Channels programs for this alleged shortcoming, both real and vastly embellished.
We agreed with all those statements by O'Brien. This additional assertion also seemed to be true:
[The avoidance of interviews] has also led to grumbling in the news media, where it is an article of faith that somebody seeking the presidency should be willing and able to answer questions from nonpartisan journalists about her plans for that role.
Plainly, some such grumbling had occurred. Imaginably, some such grumbling could now be found right there in O'Brien's memo!
For the record, O'Brien's a good, decent person. She has done a lot of good work during her career.
(Inevitably, she graduated from Harvard, in the class of 2006. She worked at the Wall Street Journal before coming to the Times in 2021.)
O'Brien's a good, decent person. We agreed with many points she initially made in her front-page profile of Candidate Harris's interview style—but then, her lengthy front-page piece seemed to go off the rails.
In our view, her profile suddenly seemed to go sideways. This raised a question within our minds about the state of our nation's political journalism, to the extent that some such creature can still be said to exist.
The New York Times is Blue America's most important news org. For denizens of Red America, the most significant "news org" would likely be the aforementioned Fox News Channel.
These news orgs almost seem to inhabit landlocked versions of two different Americas. The Fox News Channel seems to inhabit a silo inside Red America. The New York Times often seems to live in a silo too—but in that case, the silo is Blue.
Can a divided America "long endure?" As we noted on Friday, Lincoln seemed to think the answer was no.
He stated that view in 1858, when the nation was "half slave and half free." In our view, a similar problem exists today, when we're half Red and half Blue.
This week, we'll take an initial, limited look at the work which emerges from within those two influential silos. With respect to O'Brien's piece, we started out in general agreement—but soon, we encountered the highlighted part of this fuller passage:
...[O]ne-on-one televised interviews with journalists have long been a weakness in her political arsenal. She often winds her way slowly toward an answer, leaning on jargon and rehearsed turns of phrase, using language that is sometimes derided as “word salad” but might be better described as a meringue.
Candidate Harris is sometimes derided for "word salad"—but her language is more like "a meringue!" So it now said in the New York Times, with no real attempt to explain what that foofaw might mean.
It isn't a salad, it's more a meringue! For us, this bit of pseudo-analysis raised an obvious question:
On what type of mystery meat doth this one major silo feed? On what meat does it feed as it produces the very odd stew we met as this memo continued?
Now for a bit of full disclosure:
At the time this Political Memo appeared, Harris was being derided, around the clock, for what was being described as her "word salad." Around the clock, as if by mandate, that was happening within that other silo—the silo containing Fox News.
In fact, large parts of O'Brien's memo now almost seemed to be cadged from within that other silo. Here's one question we'll be asking as our rumination continues this week:
To what extent are these two silos truly apart and distinct? To what extent might a certain type of melding perhaps occur?
Tomorrow: Over in Red America's silo, a gong-show from Charlie Hurt
Who cares. She will do, as Trump does the interviews she wants to do.
ReplyDeleteLies and Infidelity is a very serious issue to deal with and it has become a major threat to most marriages and relationships.Scars left behind from a narcissist husband is hard to erase from the mind. I was reluctant at first about finding the truth about my cheating husband but I’m glad I finally took the courage for it and now I believe the saying that “The Truth Will Set You Free” cos I feel better and free now after knowing the truth. I got help from Mr James a PI/Hacker as he helped cloned my cheating husband’s phone and I got access to all his phone call logs, emails, text messages both deleted texts and also social media chats, without having access to his phone because he is mostly out of town due to the nature of his work , This was very revealing for me as he’s a serial cheater until I got all proof and ended things.I’m glad to uncover his, lies, secrets and Infidelity. You can contact him if you need help via gmail (Worldcyberhackers@gmail.com)
DeleteThe poor media.
ReplyDeleteHowever will they be able to play "Gotcha" with Harris, when she won't even talk to them?
This. Exactly.
DeleteSounds like a match made in heaven.
ReplyDeleteThe press is useless at interviewing politicians, and Harris, in turn, is bad at giving interviews to the press.
There is no evidence that Harris is bad at interviews. There is only evidence that she has chosen to use her time in other ways. If the press were bad at interviews, would it be smart for Harris to sit down for them?
DeleteDifficult to claim that Somerby isn't in the business of repeating right wing attacks on Harris.
ReplyDeleteHarris is choosing how to use her limited campaign time. How on earth could she be nimble at rallies (as Somerby states) while bad at interviews? Calling someone's remarks "word salad" is not a real complaint, as Somerby notes (but also repeats without refuting).
Meanwhile, today Trump is finally being criticized for his own word salad in an article questioning his cognitive abilities in today's NY Times. How can the same word apply to both candidates? It can't. The right is lying about Harris and Somerby is joining them.
"How on earth could she be nimble at rallies (as Somerby states) while bad at interviews?"
DeleteTeleprompters. The rallies are rehearsed and scripted.
Have you seen her handle hecklers or deal with spontaneous replies and back-and-forth during senate hearings? Implying that she isn't nimble is ridiculous.
DeleteIf she was in the flow and didn't recognize the repetition because it made sense in context, that is little different than what Trump does continuously to stall while thinking of what to say next -- he repeats himself. He did it during his own teleprompter breakdown a few days ago. He said "The teleprompter just went down." then he repeated it "The teleprompter just went down." That is stalling. Then he mocked Biden, who is NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE. Then he claimed that the wind blew down a teleprompter and talked about how very very strong the wind had been last time, going on and on about it. Then they got the teleprompter going again, while he asked wasn't it nice to have a candidate who could talk without a teleprompter. If you call that talking, when it was rambling nonsense.
But Somerby thinks it is Harris who deserves criticism, not Trump. And if Harris had been campaigning for a few more months, as would occur in a normal campaign, might she be better at handling teleprompter glitches? No one seems to care about that -- including Somerby, whose main focus is to suggest that she is lackluster, doing some campaign tasks well but clearly imperfect because a broken teleprompter might cause WWIII.
Why doesn't Somerby see how ridiculous such complaints are? Perhaps he doesn't think holistically enough?
Someone asked how on earth could Harris could be nimble at rallies while bad at interviews and the answer is teleprompters, scripted content.
DeleteNo one suggested she isn't nimble during public appearances in comparison to Trump.
Somerby said she was nimble at rallies but not in interviews. She brings the same mind and abilities to both contexts.
DeleteTeleprompters are not used during interviews. Her nimbleness at rallies is not during the scripted part but during the back-and-forth with the crowd.
I would blame test anxiety myself. If someone gets nervous about performing well (such as after being told repeatedly they are bad at interviews) then they may have trouble displaying mental flexibility because too much of their consciousness is directed toward not messing up. That is the reason why people rehearse before debates, to achieve fluency while nervous. That Harris could perform well during the debate suggests she doesn't have a problem with interviews -- she is using her time for more meetings with voters. As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Harris's campaign is using social media more than past traditional campaigns. She is meeting with influencers and podcasters because her target demographic (younger people) use those sources and not traditional cable. The time to meet with a cable host in an interview may not be worth it in terms of audience size, compared to getting out and meeting more people in public.
Her campaign has the right to make such decisions without an asshole like Somerby calling her defective.
Thanks for explaining.
DeleteIn case you missed it, "Vice President Kamala Harris found herself in an awkward situation during a rally in Michigan on Friday when an apparent teleprompter glitch caused her to repeat the same lines multiple times." You can watch the video at the link
ReplyDeletehttps://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-teleprompter-gaffe-michigan-1964282
IMO being weak at handling a teleprompter outage is not a significant reason to vote against someone. However, it's reminder that being good at reading a speech from a teleprompter is not a significant reason to vote for someone.
Still, my favorite part of The Daily Howler is when David in Cal can't tell "fine people" on the Right from neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
DeleteIt's like everyday is Christmas at TDH.
Trump had the same problem on Oct 3 in Saginaw. Instead of repeating the same sentence, he shouted: "The teleprompter just went out. The teleprompter went out." Then he riffed on Joe Biden's response to such a thing happening. Then it went back on and he said something about low taxes (from the screen), then he returned to talk about high winds blowing out a teleprompter, then he wandered into a list of things he planned, ignoring the tax message on the teleprompter. Then he called Harris "Lying Kamala" and joked about her working at McDonalds.
DeleteHow is that a better way to handle a teleprompter problem? His speech is already so jumbled that when he goes off-topic, no one can tell. He said she [Kamala] can't do any interviews, cannot answer a question. Just like Somerby did today, repeating the talking point along with his right wing buddies.
No one claimed that anyone handled their teleprompter issue better than others.
DeleteIt is implied by the fact that you brought it up.
DeleteSomehow Somerby believes it would be bad for him to be actually enthusiastic about Harris's candidacy, so he damns her with faint praise, joining the right's attack on her supposed lack of interviews (Trump gives fewer and the ones he sits for don't resemble interviews at all). I don't know any supposedly Harris-supporting Democrat who is behaving that way in this election, given how much is at stake in defeating Trump.
ReplyDeleteToday's essay is a hit piece on Harris, reminding readers that she sucks at giving interviews (everyone agrees) without telling us how many interviews she has given or whether her answers are actually word salad as claimed. A definition of word salad is clearly needed, followed by some evidence that Harris speaks word salad. Recall that last week the right was upset because she used the word "holistically" in her interview with Ruhle.
Holistically definition: "relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts"
She may have said this, but is it inappropriate to look at the big picture of a complex situation instead of only breaking it down analytically? Has Somerby never heard the word holistic in his philosophy classes? If so, why would he agree with a stupid right wing complaint about it?
word salad definition: "a mixture of words or phrases that is confused and difficult to understand"
word salad examples: "Bags stain purple vacuum. Running lately people purpose purple. Too often sleeping blankets."
No one in their right mind would think that Harris speaks like that. Why would Somerby go along with this attack on Harris?
" I don't know any supposedly Harris-supporting Democrat who is behaving that way in this election, given how much is at stake in defeating Trump."
DeleteI'm a Harris-supporting Democrat and think she's an idiotic piece of shit. We only have two choices. She's fucking lame. I'm not going to lie to myself about it.
Good example! You support Harris the same way Somerby does, with the same bigotry as the right wing, and only because Trump is crazy. And that makes you not particularly liberal, because liberals would support Harris with more enthusiasm, because they aren't infected with misogynistic and racist stereotypes and admire her accomplishments.
Delete"I'm a Harris-voting Democrat," you should say, because you are doing nothing whatsoever to support her. Somerby is doing things to actively undermine her. You cannot say you are supporting someone while doing nothing to encourage others to vote for her.
I am supporting her. I just think she's a horrible candidate to be president. Especially if Trump is a unique threat. Why run someone as unqualified and unprepared as Harris?
Delete"You cannot say you are supporting someone while doing nothing to encourage others to vote for her."
DeleteNo, you can say that. Your assertion is false.
You know the answer to your own question. The NY Times and Somerby decided that Biden was too very very very old to run again, despite doing an outstanding job as president (most recently by helping to settle the dockworker strike). There is no one else willing to run and also as well qualified as Harris. The others all refused to push Biden aside, showing integrity and perhaps protecting their chances for 2028. Biden asked Harris to run in his place. She did not talk him into stepping aside.
DeleteWho is more qualified? Who is better prepared? None of the alternatives polled as strongly against Trump as Harris did.
How does dissing your party's candidate help them win?
DeleteAs a Republican small business owner that voted for Trump, I have switched my vote to Harris. Jan 6 was a disgrace, Trump’s fear mongering has become cartoonish and dangerous, and the Supreme Court has gone off the rails.
DeleteInitially I preferred Biden over Harris, but I do find Harris’ positive and upbeat vibe endearing. She is obviously a much better candidate, and I think she will be a strong and effective president.
"Why run someone as unqualified and unprepared as Harris?"
Delete7 years as Attorney General of the biggest state in the country. 4 years as a senator; 4 as VP.
Based on this experience, she's clearly more qualified than any president has been since Bush in 1992.
Duh.
She isn’t a complete piece of shit (not even close), but even if she was, she’d be a way better candidate than any Republican.
DeleteHarris is not qualified with the proper amount of executive experience, foreign policy experience, leadership (her tenure as VP was a nightmare in this regard), crisis management, communication skills (she is an inarticulate mess), economic expertise and in many other regards she is vastly unqualified to be president. Running her as a candidate is such an enormous risk. Don't be surprised if she loses.
Delete8:05,
DeleteYou make Harris sound like a standard-issue Republican politician, except without the 100% bigotry that is needed to get Republicans to vote for them.
Off topic: This reality is why the Democrats' hope for a peacefully negotiated two-state solution is fantasy:
ReplyDeleteYesterday, Dictator and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said
“God willing, we will destroy Israel.”
Western policy makers should note that he didn’t say “God willing, we will have a two-state solution”
You have to check the translation to make sure the claim by the partisans is accurate and then check for context. You would be doing yourself a huge disservice by taking that as gospel, so to speak.
DeleteA two state solution is the only solution. It's like Churchill said about democracy. It's the worst solution, except for all the others. A two state solution is the only way. There's that way and no other way.
Dictator? Khamenei was elected, by the Assembly of Experts, no less.
DeleteKhamenei is an elderly (85) and wealthy right winger, just like Trump. Together with the right wing leader of Israel, Netanyahu, they form of triumvirate of evil.
Netanyahu wants to destroy Iran, and roped in Trump, who now also wants to destroy Iran. Indeed, Israel is aggressively attacking Iran. Therefore, considering the context, Khamenei’s stance on Israel is relatively reasonable.
You get three right wingers bickering, nothing good will come of it. Duh.
Right. The only path to peace is total annihilation.
DeleteA few days ago, we were debating how much money FEMA spent on migrants. Here's one expensive program designed to benefit migrants:
ReplyDelete"According to FEMA’s own reports, the Shelter and Services Program allocated $364 million in the 2023 fiscal year and another staggering $650 million for 2024 to provide shelter, food, healthcare, and even hotel accommodations for noncitizen migrants."
Lots of specific details at the link https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/10/rep-nancy-mace-exposes-femas-lies-introduces-bill/
FEMA administers this program but it doesn't run it out of its disaster relief funding. There were no disaster funds diverted to migrants before or after this hurricane. Heather Cox Richardson fully described this program, as did Kessler (quoted yesterday). No one has been hiding this program, but the right is pretending that a diversion of FEMA funds has resulted in a shortage to deal with this current hurricane. That is a lie.
DeleteIt should be obvious that FEMA is best equipped to deal with sheltering people in various places across the country, at short notice. It should also be obvious that migrants need to sleep somewhere and have food and water, and that if they are being held by the govt (such as for deportation), the govt must provide this.
No one said that FEMA doesn't help migrants. This program was acknowledged yesterday and in the linked sources. FEMA also announced that it does not have a shortage of funds to deal with the current hurricane response.
Trump would no doubt put people in cages and not feed them, forcing them to sleep on the floor. That is how third-world countries operate. Republicans are not known for their empathy and Trump has less than the average Republican. Even jails provide beds and food.
The lying Republican argument was that FEMA diverted funds from disaster relief to give to immigrants. More BS out of DIC. It’s a daily thing.
DeleteNow if FEMA diverted charitable money to enrich their personal bank accounts, it would be crickets from DIC.
DeleteGeoff Duncan, the Republican former lieutenant governor of Georgia who has endorsed Harris in this year's election, said during a CNN broadcast on Friday night that Trump's false hurricane claims acted as solemn evidence pertaining to the state of his party.
Delete"It's a sobering reminder of where the Republican Party is at right now, and how deep in the gutter we truly are," Duncan told CNN's Kaitlan Collins. "To think that we're going to use this platform to politicize ... one of the worst storms to hit this region ever."
How's life in gutter, Dickhead?
Those same immigrants generate $12 billion in revenues for the government every year, which speaks nothing of their enormous contribution to our gdp, therefore the cost of sheltering them is a fraction of what they contribute, they pay for themselves.
Delete12:38 To say nothing of their contributions to local economies. Where did you find the 12 billion number?
DeleteThe CBO projects that immigrants will add $1.2 trillion to federal revenues over the period 2024-2034, so eventually far exceeding the $12 billion/year.
DeleteHere is an article about the $12 billion per year:
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes
David, if you want to be well-informed, you need to give up the Gateway Pundit. It's a poorly-run, often wrong outlet.
DeleteThe program cited in the story you linked is Shelter and Services. It is, indeed a FEMA program, one that existed before the current administration came into office. It does not use disaster relief funds or conflict with disaster relief in any way. Like every other federal program, it's budget is set by Congress.
Money from this program is not "given to illegal immigrants." Local governments and charities can apply for these funds to offset expenses incurred due to the effects of migration. (So I suppose you could say the money is indirectly given to migrants. You could also say it's given to local governments so taxpayers aren't burdened with the costs of caring for migrants.)
Anyway, do try to be better informed. And stop spreading bogus claims from propagandists.
David seems civil, but is a 100% Republican tribalist and Trump dead ender. He will always spread bogus claims.
DeleteAs for the "staggering" $650 million figure, it is dwarfed by the size of FEMA's completely separate disaster relief fund which has total budget authority exceeding $40 billion (with a b).
DeleteGeoff Duncan, the Republican former lieutenant governor of Georgia who has endorsed Harris in this year's election, said during a CNN broadcast on Friday night that Trump's false hurricane claims acted as solemn evidence pertaining to the state of his party."It's a sobering reminder of where the Republican Party is at right now, and how deep in the gutter we truly are," Duncan told CNN's Kaitlan Collins. "To think that we're going to use this platform to politicize ... one of the worst storms to hit this region ever."
DeleteDiC is deep in the gutter.
Sunday sure flew by.
ReplyDeleteSundaes fly by too.
DeleteSomerby complains that interviewers are bad at interviewer whenever they don't ask the questions he would have asked. He especially makes that complaint when they don't follow up aggressively after a candidate has made it clear they don't want to answer a question. I thin interviewers are aware that they would appear nasty and aggressive, biased, if they were to press too hard after a candidate has signed off on a response.
ReplyDeleteI can only guess what Somerby thinks might be a more effective candidate response during an interview. I trust that the candidates themselves know what their goals are and what they want to say. It is hard to know what Somerby's complaint is about Harris, since he has said nothing specific about her, except that she isn't good at it.
He was saying her other campaigning was bad too, except for her smile, until others started praising her effectiveness at rallies. Maybe Somerby is just overly influenced by the right wing chorus claiming Harris can't do interviews (starting with Trump's repetitive assertion and repeated as a talking point by all right wingers). When you watch Fox 24/7, it is easy to be taken in by their propaganda. It is entirely possible that Somerby is wrong about this and not sufficiently motivated to investigate and see how well she has done, except that Somerby has already said that he thinks Ruhle didn't press her enough (because all good Democrats want to see their own candidate put on the spot and put on-the-ropes by some TV host. Yes, that would be better theater, but how would it help Harris win her election?
This was in the NY Times today, which perhaps Somerby hasn't had time to read before complaining about a non-problem:
ReplyDelete"Vice President Kamala Harris will engage in a media blitz this week, sitting for a series of mostly friendly interviews as her campaign shifts into exhorting her supporters to make sure they cast their votes.
The increased exposure on television, radio and podcasts comes with less than one month until Election Day as voters in several battleground states receive their absentee ballots in the mail.
Ms. Harris’s campaign announced on Sunday that she would appear on Tuesday on ABC’s “The View”; Howard Stern’s satellite radio program; and “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.”
Ms. Harris and her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, had generally avoided news media interviews for weeks after she replaced President Biden as the Democratic nominee and added Mr. Walz to the ticket.
Last month, Ms. Harris’s top aides said she would soon embark on a robust media tour, though one unlikely to place her in front of many aggressive inquisitors. Her campaign, like that of former President Donald J. Trump, believes that the traditional strategy of interviews with broadcast networks and national newspapers is outdated and not worth the accompanying risks, because swing voters tend to get their political news from less traditional sources.
Indeed, Ms. Harris’s first cable television sit-down was with Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC, a friendly face who days earlier had expressed her preference for Ms. Harris over Mr. Trump.
Likewise, many of those interviewing Ms. Harris this week have openly backed either her or Mr. Biden.
Mr. Colbert hosted fund-raisers for Mr. Biden in 2020 and again this year. Mr. Stern endorsed Mr. Biden in 2020 and hosted him for a warm interview in April.
Mr. Walz will appear on Tuesday on ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live.” Mr. Kimmel last month endorsed Ms. Harris for president.
Ms. Harris’s campaign had already announced that she and Mr. Walz would appear in an interview with the CBS News program “60 Minutes” that is set to air on Monday night. The campaign had also said that Ms. Harris would participate on Thursday in a Univision town-hall event in Las Vegas.
The vice president has also recorded an interview on Call Her Daddy, a popular podcast about sex, dating and relationships. The interview, which focuses on abortion rights and other women’s issues, is set to be released on Sunday evening.
Both Ms. Harris and Mr. Walz will campaign on Wednesday in Arizona on the first day of the state’s early voting period. Ms. Harris will return to Arizona for an event on Friday.
At each of her stops, Ms. Harris is expected to urge supporters to return their ballots without delay, an exhortation she made on Friday during a rally in Flint, Mich."
Totally not mentioned: Trump's grueling slate of hard-nosed, challenging interviews with elite journalists from the entire specturm of news outlets.
DeleteWhat's that? He's not...even one?
Never mind.
Also not mentioned: Trump’s cognitive and physical decline, and he won’t release his medical records. This after pummeling Biden for weeks and months on his supposed diminished state of mind and speculating that he might have Parkinson’s, despite releasing his records. Is our press learning?
DeleteAmerica was divided before the civil war and after the civil war, and in much the same way: left vs right, but with the difference being that slavery was outlawed. Indeed, society has been divided this way for 10-12k years.
ReplyDeleteThe problem was less that we were divided, and more that racist chattel slavery was a pernicious and destructive notion, worthy of a fight, just like modern day issues with oppressions like racism, sexism, and xenophobia.
Somerby struggles with this bone simple circumstance, he seems trapped by his inability to coherently resolve his emotional distress over lacking the dominance he desires.
Somerby asserts that Rebecca is a good decent person, although he does not bother to offer any substantiation. I know people who say otherwise, and they seem more trustworthy than Somerby, who is infamous for his slippery rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteSomerby also asserts that there is some nebulous issue with the degree that Harris gives one on one interviews, meekly offering that Harris is thereby being mocked on Fox News, and causing consternation in corporate media.
Yet Harris seems to be employing a smart and effective strategy, based on polling.
Corporate media, along with Somerby, are upset that traditional realms of influence have been diminished, that old modes of grifting are no longer as viable as in the past. Boohoo.
It's about time. Past candidates generally had particular strengths could be described in a brief phrase
ReplyDeleteEisenhower - war hero
Biden - Highly experienced
Trump - worldwide icon
Hillary Clinton - unrivaled experience. Or, brilliant student at a top college and law school
Obama - Brilliant. Or First black President
McCain - heroic courage
For Harris it might be "First woman President" but a more apt phrase is "Not Trump".
Harris: prosecutor
DeleteTrump: convicted felon
Trump - worldwide con
DeleteThere, I fixed it for you.
"Worldwide icon"?
DeleteShort-fingered vulgarian.
Well said, Quaker. Still, when Trump ran in 2016, he was a somebody, even if he was somebody you didn't like.
DeleteCharles Manson was a somebody too. So was Adolf Hitler. Being a “somebody” is meaningless.
DeleteI mean, they might have run Carrot Top instead. He's "somebody," too
DeleteIf Hitler wasn't dead, he'd be the Republican Presidential nominee, for sure.
DeleteThis is Harris's answer in an excerpt from an upcoming interview on 60 Minutes.
ReplyDeleteWhitaker: it seems that Netanyahu is not listening.
HARRIS: Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.
To state the obvious, that is strange, vague and poorly phrased to the point of embarrassment. This is what people mean when they say she delivers word salads and claim there is evidence that Harris is bad at interviews. She's a very strange person and a horrible candidate. I can't decide if she is as horrible as Hillary Clinton but they are both in the same league of awful candidates to be president. They both are asking to lose in the way they campaign. Hillary was worse now that I think about it. Harris is better b/c she is flat out weird, which is kind of cool in a way. Like your drunk aunt or the neighbor who’s always on acid, launching into incomprehensible, unwanted lectures that drift in and out of reality, beyond the reach of reason, where the stars drowning.
Yawn, fake news.
DeleteThat response was a follow up to and referencing of Harris’ moments-earlier more in depth response, so you’re both taking it out of context and cherry picking - two tells of a bad faith argument.
Harris is relatively vague on Israel, because it is an ongoing situation with many players and background negotiations that could be negatively impacted by leaders making absolute statements.
In reality, Harris is navigating these kind of tricky and delicate questions with disciplined tact and diplomacy, which does make her vulnerable to disingenuous attacks like from 2:40 who are ignorant of the circumstances, and are just coping with a personal vendetta, but also showcases her strength as a leader.
2:40’s unhinged anger at Harris should not be ignored, though, since it’s an attempt at intimidation; 2:40’s looney and threatening tone likely spills over into their private life, one hopes those that must interact with 2:40 personally, remain safe and sound.
3:04 Exactly.
Delete@3:04 - you provide a better answer to the question than what Harris said.
Delete@3:04 explained that Harris is constrained by her position as VP.
DeleteA skilled politician can frame vague statements in a way that sounds purposeful. For example, instead of saying "resulted in movements" (which sounds odd), they might say, "We’ve seen important developments" or "Positive steps have been taken," which sounds more confident and signals progress without going into detail.
DeleteIf Harris was constrained by her position and had to make vague statement, she does a poor job of it here, which prompts some people to accuse here of word salads and being a closet drunk.
Didn't we all ask ourselves - what specific "movements" Israel has made? What specific "advocacy" the U.S. has engaged in? What specific "needs" are being addressed? What has this bitch been dranking? ✊🏿 ;)
That isn't the reason they are calling Harris bad things. They would do that no matter what she said.
DeleteWhat specific use would you make of more specific info, other than to criticize Harris? If she were speaking about this same stuff daily, she would have smoother language, but it is better that she say what she can (and not what she shouldn't), regardless of how smoothly she phrases it. This is an unreasonable criticism.
Calling Harris a bitch is disrespectful and demeaning. Why would you do that in reference to any political candidate, except to express hostility. The same can be asked about those references to drinking.
It's an example of her lack of competency and illustrates why she is unqualified to be president. I think you can see that.
DeleteAll people are asking for is a basic level of coherency.
Delete3:04 Saying a bunch of words without actually saying anything is a standard tactic of politicians, but talented politicians usually have the ability to do so without it being so glaringly, painfully obvious to everyone watching.
DeleteQ: Sir, you’ve accused President Obama of “the biggest political crime in American history, by far”. What crime exactly are you accusing him of committing?
DeleteTrump: Obamagate. It’s been going on for a long time. It’s been going on from before I even got elected, and it’s a disgrace that it happened, and if you look at what’s gone on, and if you look at now--all this information that’s being released--and from what I understand, that’s only the beginning, some terrible things happened, and it should never be allowed to happen in our country again. And you’ll be seeing what’s going on over the next, over the coming weeks but I, and I wish you’d write honestly about it but unfortunately you choose not to do so.
Q: What is the crime, exactly, that you’re accusing him of?
Trump: You know what the crime is. The crime is very obvious to everyone. All you have to do is read the newspapers, except yours...
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/05/obamagate-as-explained-by-president-trump.html
Yeah, what we need is a candidate who declares the war "a disgrace" that only he can resolve with one powerful phone call MAGA!
Delete600,000 Ukrainians have died in that war. Too bad there was nothing Biden could do to stop that from happening.
DeleteYeah, too bad. It’s “Biden’s fault”, and yet, he was chastised for supplying money and weapons to Ukraine, which Trump and his GOP oppose. They would like to hand our ally over to Putin. Let’s accuse Biden of doing too much, too little, and nothing at all.
DeleteIt's too bad there was nothing Biden could do about the 600,000 Ukrainians who were killed while he was president. U.S. Presidents have a lot of power and agency around the world but in this case, it was out of his hands. There was nothing he could do about it. Putin invaded and that was that. Plus Trump something.
DeleteNo, not Trump something. Trump got impeached for threatening to withhold arms shipments to Ukraine. No big deal to you, obviously. You know, the traitor who complimented Putin on the invasion, and who sided with Putin over our own intelligence agencies. This may come as a shock to you, but Biden's first responsibility is to protect American lives. But if you feel compelled to offer your services in order to save Ukrainians, feel free to hop on a plane and grab a gun when you get over there. Give it your best and send a post card once in awhile.
DeleteOk. I see. Trump Bad was bad and it's sad for the over half a million Ukrainians who were killed during Biden Good's presidency that Biden Good couldn't figure out a way to prevent those hundreds of thousands of deaths given that he has so much power to do so.
DeleteUkraine loses the war no matter what. So it's sad that Biden Good couldn't figure out how to prevent all those deaths, but he had no choice.There was simply nothing he could do. It was out of his hands. And Trump Bad was bad. And Biden Good will end his presidency with the country of Ukraine basically ruined. And over a half a million dead. And their families and children. And hundred of millions of our dollars looted and gone. And Trump Bad is bad.
Your numbers are Russian fantasies. You either know that and are lying or are as innumerate as an eight year old. Maybe grow up, Vlad.
Delete4:30,
DeleteRelax.
Biden still has time to send DeSantis' and Abbott's FEMA money to Ukraine, before he leaves office.
Let's not be ridiculous. Treason McRapey is no worse than any other standard-issue Reagan Republican.
Delete4:30,
Deletethe Ukrainian people disagree with you.
"This may come as a shock to you, but Biden's first responsibility is to protect American lives."
DeleteOne of his secondary responsibilities is help those invaded by a murderous, thug dictator.
Suck on that.
Clinton would likely have made an excellent president. She was experienced and competent. Labeling the two only female presidential candidates as you do is a self-own.
ReplyDeleteClinton married into it.
DeleteYes, but which Clinton "married into it"? Some might say it was Bill.
DeleteSome pathetic imbecile might say that. True.
DeleteThe last 2 Republican presidents were straight out of Horatio Alger, self- made rags to riches types, whose rise to power could only have happened in a meritocracy like the US. Otherwise, there is zero data supporting the contention (if there is anyone stupid enough to suggest so) that either Trump or Bush Jr. could hold a candle to H. Clinton intellectually.
Delete"The last 2 Republican presidents were straight out of Horatio Alger, self- made rags to riches types, whose rise to power could only have happened in a meritocracy like the US."
DeleteRags to riches? Trump and Bush?
Haw!
"The last 2 Republican presidents were straight out of Horatio Alger, self- made rags to riches types"
DeleteIs that you, J.D.?
Our Host is blogging to us from the future! "Monday, October 7"!
ReplyDelete"A silo mentality is the unwillingness to share information or knowledge between employees or across different departments within a company. The silo mentality usually begins with competition among senior managers. Successful firms encourage and facilitate a free flow of information."
ReplyDeleteUsing this term to describe the different viewpoints in politics is stupid because (1) it isn't the political campaigns who are separating the knowledge held by their followers, but the media; (2) both parties are not participating in spreading distinct information by withholding info from opponents, but one party is making up false info and spreading it in order to deceive both its own followers and any others, in hopes of winning votes, especially by harming the opponents by telling lies, (3) in an organization, the bottom line might be harmed by siloing instead of working together but in politics, there is perceived gain to one party by harming the other, (4) in a company the organization is made less effective as a whole, but in politics, ALL of the voters are harmed by disinformation and the American people as whole suffer, especially when congress cannot work to do its job because of the oppositional nature of the Republicans.
So this whole use of the term siloing by Somerby tends to disguise the nature of what the Republicans are doing to our country by pretending that both sides do the same thing, when the left does not lie the way the right does, and concealing the deliberate damage being done by Republicans to our nation.
An example is that Mike Johnson is not willing to call Congress back into session to vote on a disaster relief bill to aid the states affected by Hurricane Helene. Is that siloing or is that just fucking with the survivors in order to make the Democrats look like they are sending the relief money to the Haitians instead of those who need it in red states? Siloing is not the right term for the way Republicans are fucking over their own voters this way.
If Somerby took two seconds to think, he would realize that words have meanings and that using words improperly is itself a way of lying and deceiving his readers, especially when he calls Harris's interviews "word salad," another improperly used term that is most appropriately applied to Donald Trump. There is no comparison between Harris's use of language and Trump's, so Somerby is lying in order to portray Harris as less qualified than she is. Only Trump benefits from that, and the nation itself will be fucked over if Trump wins again. And that has nothing to do with siloing.
"The scams are coming from inside the platform! Get out while you can!
ReplyDeleteHere is some real info from people on the ground in NC about how the govt is assisting those who were in the hurricane. Watch until the Tiktok video at the end about the woman who went through the same thing Hurricane Ian two years ago. She tells us why this disinformation hurts the people trying to recover by deterring them from applying for real aid:
ReplyDeletehttps://digbysblog.net/2024/10/06/what-she-said-3/
The woman in the car in the last video is the real deal.
ReplyDeletencie blog
ReplyDeleteInsightful analysis! The comparison of political journalism across different silos is thought-provoking. Looking forward to more of your rumination on this topic.Great piece! The metaphor of 'word salad' versus 'meringue' really highlights the complexities of political communication. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
ReplyDelete