Or, more precisely, what the Modern Pundit Wishes Your Memory Span Were.
It's been truly remarkable with the rise of the intertubes and YouTube to see documented in all its vainglory the degree and frequency with which politicians (e.g., McSame), pundits, and assorted other self-styled "experts" blithely reverse themselves on a dime, (apparently) presuming nobody will notice, and they'll get away with it, "expert" reputation intact. And to a surprising degree, they often do get away with it, mostly, though less and less as google lets millions of us serve as fact-checkers if so inclined.
(This is something "journalists" have been quite astonishingly slow to catch on to, as shown over and over again when they serve as stenographer for, and go to print with, gossip whispered in their ears by some political operative, only to have it debunked by some citizen or blogger in about 0.25 seconds on google. Meaning, of course, the "reporter" could have saved him/herself the embarrassment through the obvious expedient of spending that quarter-second fact-checking on google themselves first; but somehow, puzzlingly, they never seem to think of that, even as this happens again and again.)
A couple weeks ago, Glenn Greenwald documented inept, dishonest, Always Wrong, neocon idiot William "The Bloody" Kristol pulling such a reversal from his perches at NYT and Fox "News", flip-flopping from urging the McPalin campaign to "take the gloves off" and attack Obama over Ayers on October 5 & 7 to, within a single week, on October 12, attacking them for taking his advice:
Kristol went on Fox News this morning and attacked the McCain campaign for running what he called a "stupid
campaign" and "a pathetic campaign" because the attacks "haven't
worked" and they're "doing things that don't work and they keep doing
them" -- without ever bothering to mention that he, Kristol, just last week, was one of the loudest and most vocal advocates for relying on these character attacks against Obama
And for today's example of the low esteem such Pundits hold you in, whereby the awful Bob Herbert counts on your memory -- of his own blathering -- not extending back past May of this year, much less all the way to January, we'll just hand the reins over (at some length) to the incomparable Bob Somerby. They really do think you're this stupid and memory-challenged (are you?):
But good God! We really had to laugh out loud when the scribe began to
gush about the uplifting Hillary Clinton! Yes, Sarah Palin has been a
horrible candidate—the worst ever on the national stage, in our own
estimation. But how much do pseudo-liberals love to attack her? This
passage made us throw our heads back and roar with mordant laughter:
HERBERT (10/28/08): The heyday of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove is over. Yet
Senator McCain handed the reins of his campaign to Rove’s worshipful
acolytes. With the nation in a high state of anxiety over the
conflagration in the credit and financial markets, Senator McCain
traveled the country ranting Rovelike about Bill Ayers, trying to
instill a bogus belief that the onetime ’60s radical and Senator Obama
were good buddies and perhaps involved in some nefarious doings
together. Senator Obama was about 8 years old when Mr. Ayers was
engaged in his nefarious doings.
It was the classic fear card that the Republicans have played to such brilliant effect for years. But times have changed.
(Lately Senator McCain has been obsessively invoking the name of “Joe
the Plumber” at his campaign appearances, as if that might be the
phrase that finally sways the electorate in a way that the Bill Ayers
mantra did not.)
Senator Hillary Clinton helped define the new political atmosphere with her own historic run for the White House.
Senator McCain, demonstrating again his tone-deafness to the new
reality, tried to capitalize on Mrs. Clinton’s remarkable achievement
by cynically selecting Sarah Palin, the anti-Hillary, as his running mate.
Truly, that’s astounding. Surely, your country will never prosper in the hands of “progressives” like these.
Hillary Clinton helped define the new political atmosphere with her own historic run for the White House! Can no one recall what Herbert said about Clinton in real time? What he said, rightly or wrongly?
On January 26, Herbert went way off his meds, writing a piece about Clinton that we regarded as deeply unwise (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/29/08). You may have judged that column differently. But here’s a key chunk of what Herbert said:
HERBERT (1/26/08): The Clinton camp knows what it's doing, and its slimy maneuvers have been working.
[...]
[I]t's legitimate to ask, given the destructive developments of the
last few weeks, whether the Clintons are capable of being anything but
divisive. The electorate seems more polarized now than it was just
a few weeks ago, and the Clintons have seemed positively gleeful in
that atmosphere.
It makes one wonder whether they have any understanding or regard for
the corrosive long-term effects—on their party and the nation—of
pitting people bitterly and unnecessarily against one another.
We thought Herbert’s column was deeply unfair, and remarkably foolish;
he even resorted to a type of nut-picking, quoting a stupid comment
someone wrote on “a mainstream news blog,” then acting like it was
Clinton’s fault. You may have judged that column differently. But go
ahead! Just laugh out loud as he tells you today that Clinton helped
define this uplifting new atmosphere—in contrast to Vile Palin, of
course. Oh by the way: Just four days earlier, Herbert had written this
about the uplifting Clinton:
HERBERT (1/22/08): The Democrats are here this week fighting over the
black vote. It's ironic that in a state so racially polarized, there is
so little serious discussion among the candidates of the race issue.
Senator Barack Obama, with his message of unity and healing (and not
wanting to be seen solely as a black candidate), has tried to avoid
addressing the issue of race head-on. Bill
and Hillary Clinton have worked hard at turning that posture into a
negative, aggressively courting the black vote, while at the same time
spotlighting (directly and through surrogates) the fact that Mr. Obama
is black.
Where was the uplifting Clinton then? Where was the uplifting Clinton
in March, when Herbert wrote a column (“Confronting the Kitchen Sink”)
which went after “the trash-and-thrash tactics that helped Senator
Clinton defeat [Obama] in Ohio and Texas?” As he closed that particular
column, Herbert described the way Clinton was helping define the new political atmosphere with her own historic run:
HERBERT (3/8/08): We have seen election after election in which
candidates have won by fanning the anxieties of voters. Elect me, or
something terrible will happen to you!
That is now the Clinton mantra, which is a measure of how grim our politics have become.
B-Herb! You wrote that this year!
On balance, we disagreed with Herbert’s criticisms in that column; you
may have viewed them differently. But in real time, where was the
glorious Clinton, the one about whom Herbert gushes today? In real
time—in Herbert’s actual columns—that person didn’t exist. Even as late
as Memorial Day, Herbert opened a column in the following manner. In
this piece, he approvingly banged the drums for one of the most
appalling attack-attack-attacks we’ve ever seen dumped on a candidate.
We thought this was inexcusable stuff (though KeithO had pimped it much harder):
HERBERT (5/27/08): On Friday morning, Joe Biden gave us an example of a
leading national politician exhibiting decency and class. Later in the day, Hillary Clinton gave us an example of something else.
Sadly, that was the start of the column in which Herbert wet his pants about—well, let’s recall how Clinton was helping define the new political atmosphere with her own historic run. After praising Biden’s decency, Herbert declaimed like this:
HERBERT (5/27/08): Later that day, Senator Clinton made her now infamous reference to Robert F. Kennedy's assassination.
If you give her every benefit of the doubt, you still have a candidate
making a tasteless and purely self-serving comment that she should have
understood would send a shiver of dread through millions.
In our view, Herbert played the fool that day—and he’d had four days to
reconsider the nonsense surrounding that particular
attack-attack-attack against Clinton. (Ugly nonsense Obama’s campaign
had pushed, attack-attack-attacking its foe.)
In short, Herbert trashed Clinton’s conduct and character all year
long—crying, wailing, imagining, dreaming, promoting the ugliest
possible charges. We thought his claims were usually wrong; you may
have judged them differently. But today, he treats you like a gang of
fools—as our lords so typically do. Today, he throws you Scalp of
Palin—using the ploy to reverse himself about Vile Clinton’s vile
conduct.
Suddenly, Clinton’s a force of light—unlike his new pleasing miscreant.
Here at THE HOWLER, we don’t think very highly of Herbert, although
we’d like to think different. In the 1990s, he ran with power—ran with
the crowd—trashing Bill Clinton for his endless vile conduct. And sure
enough! By the end of the decade, he even seemed to be working hard to
put George Bush in the White House. Herbert should crawl on his knees
to explain. Instead, he still plays you like toys.
Hey, rubes! Herbert’s column today is almost spectacularly
disingenuous. But then, so was the garbage he pimped about Gore as the
world’s destiny hung in the balance. Progressive interests simply can’t prosper with leaders like this in our march.
Here comes an unflattering view: Herbert and Rich sold your interests
in the 1990s, caving to power—to Rove and Atwater. Remind us again, so
we’re all reassured: Why won’t these gentlemen flip-flop again, when
power comes to call—as it will?
A postscript: If even one of these guys would explain his
past conduct, we’d treat him like a conquering hero. But have you ever
seen a single scribe explain why he, and the rest of the gang, did the
sick things they all did in that era? Their wars have all been
disappeared—and as of today, with this new bright column, so has Vile
Clinton’s more recent vile conduct. Attack-attack-attack? It’s all so yesterday, Herbert explains—having attack-attacked this whole year.
