Huffington Post. Still the scum of the Journalistic Earth...

Finally, since I figured out how to use screen capture, you get to see what I mean.

So I saw this this evening:

Don't worry, the actual story is just as bad.

Oddly enough, I was familiar with Biden story before seeing this headline. Familiar enough to know that Huffington Post's take (or at least the headline's take) was 100% bullshit.

If you wanna know what the Vice President actually said, you might have to go to an actual newspaper like the Washington Post:

“Even though 50-some percent of the American people think the economy tanked because of the last administration, that’s not relevant,” said the vice president. “What’s relevant is we’re in charge.”... 

Biden said it is “totally legitimate” for the 2012 presidential election to be “a referendum on Obama and Biden and the nature and state of the economy.” He said Americans will need to make a choice between what the Obama administration is offering to address the problem and what is being offered by the eventual Republican nominee.

Greg Sargent put it like this:

You can see why conservatives would jump on this — it gives them something to undercut the idea that Bush continues to deserve more of the blame for our current mess than Obama does. What Biden’s quotes really reflect, I think, is the tricky political spot the White House is in when it comes to the former President. White House advisers are aware that the public does still blame Bush more than Obama for our current predicament — this is confirmed in poll after poll, though that may be changing — but they also think voters probably don’t want to hear Obama telling them they should continue to blame Bush more than himself.

Conservatives constantly claim that Obama does try to fob off blame for the economy on to Bush, in order to dodge blame himself. But by and large, the real political argument Obama is making when he invokes the problems he inherited is one about the scale of the challenges we face, and how long they were in the making. It’s not finger pointing. It’s a plea for patience.

By the way, conservatives are right: Obama probably does “own” the economy in political terms right now. Indeed, it’s possible for the two following things to be simultaneously true: First, the public continues to blame Bush for originally tanking the economy; and second, this may be mostly irrelevant in 2012. The American people know Bush made an absolutely hideous mess of things. They hired Obama to clean up that hideous mess. They will judge Obama in 2012 on his progress towards completing that chore — whether the public will factor in GOP efforts to block Obama’s solutions remains to be seen — and will decide whether they think his GOP opponent would manage it any better. Obama will argue that his GOP foe plans to revive the ideas that tanked the economy under Bush in the first place. But that will ultimately be an argument over how to proceed in the future, not a relitigation of the past.

Bush broke it. Obama now owns it. Americans will judge his efforts to fix it — and will pick whichever candidate and party they think would best complete that job. Okay?

So Greg's right about Conservatives spinning the story this way...

...so why is Huffington Post doing the same thing?

Are we done with Huffington Post yet? I mean collectively, as a Civilization? Shouldn't we just quit?

I love this. First, HuffPo notes the presence of Keith's Worst Person's video, only it wasn't a worst person's video. It was a Special Comment (a fact that even this tiny little blog noted, and got right), and Keith noticed that HuffPo screwed the story up.

This was all after Huffngton Post decided to pull noted racist Andrew Brietbart from its front page, mere hours after their decision to stand by him.

Huffington Post still sucks, but dangit all if Arianna didn't get herself paid.

The Huffington Post just lied to you...

Well, maybe lied is too strong a word...but this keeps happening over and over again with them.

HEALTH CARE LAW RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

It's not. It's pointed not been ruled unconstitutional. What did Ezra just say???

And the story links to one with radically different headline:

Health Care Reform Provision Is Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules

Which is accurate.

Huffington Post is not an ethical organization. They lie just about as much as Fixed News...all in the service of a click.

The Huffington Post finds a way to break absolutely no news at all...

I've never been a big fan of Howard Fineman, but I was at least hoping that his journalistic ethos would rub off on the Click-addicts at the Huffington Post.

No such luck.

Here's the Headline:

White House Gives In On Bush Tax Cuts

And here's the relevant section:

But there is just such a change on taxes.

Although the president "took the position he felt was the right position" -- favoring a continuation of the cuts only for families earning up to $250,000 -- Axelrod portrayed this "optimal" stance as unrealistic in the lame-duck Congress that begins next week.

For one, time is not on the administration's side. All of the tax cuts, enacted in 2001 and 2003, will expire at the end of this year unless Congress acts. The Republicans in effect "built in tax increases," Axelrod said. And separating out different categories of tax cuts now -- extending some without extending others -- is politically unrealistic and procedurally difficult, he added.

"We don't want that tax increase to go forward for the middle class," he said, which means the administration will have to accept them all for some as yet unspecified period of time. "But plainly, what we can't do is permanently extend these high income taxes."

In other words, the White House won't risk being blamed for raising taxes on the middle class even though, arguably, it is the GOP's refusal to separate the categories that has put Obama in this bind. The only condition, at least initially, seems to be that the tax-cuts-for-the wealthy not be extended "permanently."

What does that mean?

Well, not a lot, and a lot closer to nothing at all. This is the same thing we've been hearing about for, literally, months now. Don't wanna extend the Tax cuts for the Rich. Will probably wind up temporarily extending Tax Cuts for the rich in order to get Tax cuts for Middle Class.

Now, I don't like it...but it's not news.

Huffington Post? Call me when you break something.

Why I hate Huffington Post, an ongoing series.

There's a story in Huffington Post, a fair one. It's titled:

Obama: More Aggressive Anti-Foreclosure Efforts Would Help People Who Don't Deserve It.

That's a story that probably has some fair criticism.

But what's on the front page?  What's the headline you have to click on to get to that story?

IS HE TRYING TO
LOSE THE MIDTERMS?

This is why I can't stand the Huffington Post.

Huffington Post: Making as little sense as usual.

It's a blaring headline on the Huffington Post right now:

DEMS UNLIKELY TO REPEAL BUSH TAX CUTS

The link leads to a story in McClatchy that says:

Democrats unlikely to repeal tax cuts for the rich

Democrats in Congress are poised to play a leading role this month in thwarting their party's effort to raise income tax rates on the wealthy.

Tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 expire at the end of this year. President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have been eager to extend the breaks for individuals who earn less than $200,000 annually and joint filers who make less than $250,000. Those who earn more would pay higher, pre-2001 rates starting next year.

However, a small but growing number of moderate Democrats are balking at boosting taxes on the rich. Many face electorates that recoil at the mention of any tax increase. Some represent areas that are loaded with wealthier taxpayers. Further, some incumbent senators who don't face voters this fall are reluctant to increase taxes on anyone while the economy remains sluggish.

Without their support, the push to raise rates on the rich probably will fail.

I respect McClatchy...and despite the fact I'm a Liberal, I can't stand Huffington Post...but there is a huge problem with the story, as far as I see it.

One, the Bush Tax Rates are set to expire at the end of the year. No further legislation is needed to raise the rates back to Bill Clinton-era levels. In fact, no further action is needed to raise the rates back to Bill Clinton-era levels.

(Once again, it's all about the clicks.)

So what are we talking about here??

Fine, was a movement afoot by...well, fiscally responsible Democrats to enact legislation to raise taxes on the rich, and a few Democrats have been stoopid enough to champion the idea of keeping our Nation's wealthiest citizens taxes low, low, low.

And Evan Bayh just proved to me what a crappy Vice-President he would have been. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, you rich bastard!

It is quite possible that Washington stalemate will produce the result fiscally responsible Liberals want, no bill to extend the Bush Tax Cuts. (Do you really think there's 60 votes for this crap? I'm betting 53-55 tops.)

Let's say they do get the tax cuts extended. Who exactly is going to sign them?

The way he was talking last night, I don't think it's going to be Barack Obama.

Again, let me repeat what he said:

Throughout our history, America has been willing to bear the burden of promoting liberty and human dignity overseas, understanding its links to our own liberty and security. But we have also understood that our nation’s strength and influence abroad must be firmly anchored in our prosperity at home. And the bedrock of that prosperity must be a growing middle class.

Unfortunately, over the last decade, we’ve not done what’s necessary to shore up the foundations of our own prosperity. We spent a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits. For too long, we have put off tough decisions on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform. As a result, too many middle-class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation’s long-term competitiveness is put at risk.

And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced. Now, it’s our turn. Now, it’s our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for -- the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.

Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.

Translation: Okay, y'all have made everything I've done in the last two years about the deficit (even when I've worked to trim the deficit), so put your money where your mouth is. I'm about to give you what you say you want, a lower deficit. Now are you willing to stop whoring for your Corporate Masters to get this done, or is what you're selling nothing but a mountain of bullshit?

I'm betting mountain.

It's all about the clicks...

I'm sorry, but here's further proof that all Huffington Post is interested in is getting you to click on a story so they can report that figure to their advertisers.

On the front page of the Huffington Post is this story:

Dennis Kucinich 2012?

Click to the Politics Page, you get this:

WATCH: Dennis Kucinich Won't Challenge Obama In 2012

Same website. Same news source. Same story.

This is why I stopped reading Huffington Post, Part 348

Swear to God, this is one of the headlines on the Huffington Post right now:

WATCH: Obama Campaigned On Net Neutrality -- Has He Lived Up To His Promise?

Lemme get this straight. Two private Companies get together and decide to impose a tiered-system on at least part of the internet (something, last I checked, Obama's FCC doesn't like), and it's the President's fault??

Comparitive Journalism 101

Mr. President, are you sure you want me reading the Huffington Post? I'm a Liberal, and I'm not sure.

Here's the headline on the front of their Politics page right now:

WHITE HOUSE NOT BUDGING ON DRILLING
Gibbs Says It's 'Premature' To Take Additional Offshore Drilling Off The Table

The Obama administration said on Monday that it remains "premature" to rule out including additional offshore drilling as part of comprehensive energy legislation, even as Senate Democrats warn that such a provision would make the bill "dead on arrival."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that the president will determine whether to stay with or abandon his call for additional drilling off various parts of the coast once he gets the findings of an investigation into the massive oil spill in the Gulf.

Funny, because Greg Sargent at the Plum Line (and a TPM alum) has this headline off the same damn story:

Did Gibbs Open Door To Reinstating Drilling Ban?

President Obama has an opportunity on his hands: He could, if he so chose, seize on the Gulf oil spill to reverse his announcement of new offshore drilling and reinstate the ban on it. No idea if he’ll take this opportunity, but it’s there.

The left is redoubling its push for him to resinstate the ban, arguing that strong leaders aren’t afraid to change their minds when empirical evidence suggests they should do so. And Obama has repeatedly said he will base his administration’s decisions on “science” and “facts.”

This strong new MoveOn ad, for instance, argues that “sometimes great leaders are tested.” The ad calls for the ban to be revived, and asks: “President Obama: Will you lead our country into a clean energy future?”

At the press briefing just now, Robert Gibbs was pressed on whether this is a possibilty, and interestingly, he didn’t rule it out. Asked if the administration’s thinking had shifted, Gibbs noted that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was probing the spill, adding:

“This is an administation that is going to take whatever we get from that and have that dicate our decision-making going forward. It would be premature to get to far ahead of where Secretary Salazar’s investigation is…

“The investigation is to determine what happened and to use that information going forward to dictate any changes in our policy.”

That seems to leave the door open to a possible policy change. Now, we don’t know what the investigation will find, and it’s very possible that the administration will ultimately argue that this one disaster is an exception and doesn’t undercut the case for more drilling.

But either way, Obama has an opening here to change direction. And if he were to reinstate the drilling ban, he would be in a better position to argue that the spill proves in vivid, horrifying detail that the cost of remaining addicted to oil, and the price of inaction on energy reform, are too great to risk any longer.

This is why I stopped reading Huffington Post, Part 347

It was crap like this:

Michael Brenner: Obama vs. Obama

We have in Obama a president who is what we used to call a moderate Republican before the species became extinct. That means suspicions of government programs, a strong belief that we should always give private interests the benefit of the doubt, an assumption that the rich deserve their riches, and an insensitivity to the plight of salaried Americans. Abroad, Obama is ready to deploy military might in dubious causes defined by the country's hawkish defense establishment. Far-fetched? Let's take a clear eyed look at what President Obama actually has done and said.

What a revoltin' development...

The revolt against Huffington Post is kinda beginning. At least, I'd like to think so.

Granted, the link is just to blogpost on TPM, but it well illustrates my own dissatisfaction with Huffington Post in recent months. I can't tell you how many times I've clicked on a Headline, only to find the exact opposite is true in the body of the article:

All the Huffington Post wants traffic. They want you to spread their rumors and links all over the place, regardless of the veracity of their stories.

Stupid Blog Posts...Part 345

This morning Miles Mogulescu wrote a post for Huffington Post (rapidly becoming a joke in my eyes) entitled: Fire Robert Gibbs...Or At Least Make Him Apologize to Howard Dean.

Look, if Mogulescu wants to defend Howard Dean and rip on the White House's attack on Howard Dean, fine. I disagree with it. I'm not wild about the White House making a target of Howard Dean. (I'm also not sure, this isn't part of a larger strategy to mollify Conservative Democrats, but that's waaaay too Machevellian.)

But that's not what makes this a stupid blog post.

The Press Secretary is does not craft the White House's communications strategy. Robert Gibbs merely is the spokesman, the mouthpiece. The guy actually crafting the communications strategy...and thus telling Robert Gibbs to take a shot at Howard Dean...is Dan Pfeffier, also known as the White House Communications Director. If Mogulescu wants to call for someone's firing (which is stupid it and of itself), he should be calling for Pfeffier's head, not Gibbs.

In the long view, it's a tiny, nit-picky error...but at the same time, we don't live in an age where we can afford nit-picky errors. If we're going to argue about Policy and Politics, we need to understand how they both work.

TPM hires Huffington Post's Headline Writers...

So, we have this story, currently on TPM's Blog:

Don't Blame the White House?

Rahm: Public option will not make it through the Senate.

But click the story, and you see this headline:

Emanuel Pessimistic On Public Option In Senate

And further down the story, comes the key 'graph:

Appearing on Charlie Rose last night, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel sounded less than optimistic that the Senate's health care reform bill would include a public option.

"I think the Senate's been clear what the prospects [are]," Emanuel said. "That doesn't mean in the House, they're not gonna come to the table and demand it."

He also wouldn't say for sure whether there will be a public option in the final legislation.

"It has to be what the conference has to negotiate," he said.

How is this news?

I don't need TPM participating in the same kind of hackery that Huffington Post does occasionally, and the SMSM does nearly all the damn time.

The story is the story. Nothing changed from before this story was written. It was coming down to Conference before this. It's coming down to Conference after. Rahm just confirmed it, that's all.

HuffPo: Milbank...still a punk.

There's a reason this guy was tossed off Countdown.

And apparently, Dana Milbank's still bitter over Obama firing his personal pal, Samantha Power (even though Samantha Power has been hired back).

Now, he's complaining that Obama is just like Bush when it comes to the Press.

Obama's response to Blagojevich questions has been decidedly junior varsity. Begging off because of an ongoing investigation? Hiding behind Patrick Fitzgerald's skirt? Warning a reporter not to "waste" a question and asking for an alternative question? All four techniques were popularized by Bush.

Both Jason Zengerle of the New Republic, and Jason Linkins of The Huffington Post (the most comprehensive of the two pieces) jumped down Milbank's throat.

And Linkins points out, correctly, that Milbank only lists three techniques.

Jason Zengerle:

I think this is unfair for a couple of reasons. First, Obama held his press conference to introduce Duncan as the man he's chosen to head up the Department of Education. Dana says this was akin to "insomnia treatment," and I concede that the Blago scandal is certainly more entertaining; but, in the annals of what's important, I'd say that the country's education policy tops the legal travails of a midwestern governor. Is it really too much to expect the press to ask Obama some questions about education during a press conference held to unveil his Secretary of Education?

Second, Obama didn't hide behind Fitzgerald's skirt to dodge McCormick's question, and Obama didn't time the release of his campaign's report so that he'd be in Hawaii when it came out. Unless, that is, Dana has evidence that Obama planned all this with Fitzgerald, since it was Fitzgerald who requested that Obama hold off releasing the report until next. Now, it is convenient for Obama that Fitzgerald did this? Sure. But it's not like he's just inventing excuses to not answer Blago questions.

Jason Linkins:

That's the rock in the road that reporters like Milbank have yet to surmount. Sure, the fact that the Obama team has been instructed to withhold the release of the report until December 22nd appears convenient from a press-process standpoint -- something self-obsessed reporters rarely tire of pointing out. But the order either came from Fitzgerald or it didn't. Obama is either complying with Fitzgerald's office or he isn't. If there's any question regarding what Fitzgerald has requested or instructed, then surely those questions should be directed at Fitzgerald, instead of simply being deployed as a suggestive pollutant at every Obama press conference between now and the report release.

My favorite part of the Linkins piece is when he called Milbank, a "Process Puppy".

HuffPo: "Obama Advisers Concerned By Gates Decision -- 'Makes Them Look Wimpy'"

Here we go again. This time from the Huffington Post.

There is an article in the Politics Section of the Huffington Post entitled: "Obama Advisers Concerned By Gates Decision -- 'Makes Them Look Wimpy'"

It links to an article in The New York Times, called: "Obama Plans to Retain Gates at Defense Department"

Scanning the article, we see the following:

“From our point of view, it looks pretty damn good because of continuity and stability,” said an Obama adviser, who insisted on anonymity to discuss confidential deliberations. “And I don’t think there are any ideological problems.”

The point of the article was to announce Gates' retention. It was not a piece about Obama advisers complaining about the retention; despite what Huffington Post seems to think. But, to be fair:

In deciding to ask Mr. Gates to stay, Mr. Obama put aside concerns that he would send a jarring signal after a political campaign in which he made opposition to the war his signature issue in the early days. Some Democrats who have advised his campaign quietly complained that he was undercutting his own message and risked alienating war critics who formed his initial base of support, especially after tapping his primary rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, for secretary of state.

But advisers argued that Mr. Gates was a practical public servant who was also interested in drawing down troops in Iraq when conditions allow.

The key paragraph, at least in Huffington Post's mind, is as follows:

But it also stirred a debate inside Mr. Obama’s circles, where some advisers worried that the decision to turn to a Republican appointee — something President Bill Clinton did in naming William S. Cohen to the defense post in 1997 — would reinforce the notion that Democrats could not manage the military. “It makes them look like they’re too wimpy to be trusted to run the building,” said one adviser who asked not to be named.

Keeping Mr. Gates after a polarizing campaign on the war also seemed incongruous to some. “I really can’t begin to understand from a political point of view how Barack Obama, a person who got the nomination because he ran against the Iraq war, can keep around the guy who’s been in charge of it for the last two years,” said Loren B. Thompson, head of the Lexington Institute, a research organization.

The Lexington Institute is something I've never heard of. This is from it's mission statement:

It is the goal of the Lexington Institute to inform, educate, and shape the public debate of national priorities in those areas that are of surpassing importance to the future success of democracy, such as national security, education reform, tax reform, immigration and federal policy concerning science and technology. By promoting America's ability to project power around the globe we not only defend the homeland of democracy, but also sustain the international stability in which other free-market democracies can thrive.

Uhhh, sounds fairly conservative to me. At least, they resemble the bunch who brought us into this War in Iraq. I can't imagine any of these guys are close to the Obama Campaign. Maybe they are, but since they're not identified as such in the NYT Piece, I kinda doubt it. So I'm left to wonder why the New York Times is going to them for quotes.