Media Watch: Non-Profit Investigative News Effort

ProPublica, whose slogan is "Journalism in the public interest," is a non-profit undertaking focusing on investigative reporting. The organization has 24 full time reporters and editors, the largest staff in American media devoted solely to investigative journalism. Its activities are supported entirely by philanthropy and the articles it produces are provided, free of charge, both through its own website and via leading news outlets selected with an eye toward maximizing the impact of its work.

Commenting on the new organization last December, editor in chief Paul E. Steiger, formerly managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, said that
"ProPublica will focus exclusively on journalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them. We will be non-partisan and non-ideological, adhering to the strictest standards of journalistic impartiality and fairness. We will look hard at the critical functions of business and of government, the two biggest centers of power. But we will also focus on such institutions as unions, universities, hospitals, foundations and the media when they appear to be exploiting or oppressing those weaker than they, or when there is evidence that they are abusing the public trust."
The organization's website includes a "scandal watch" of top stories about corruption and abuse of power. Numerous rss feeds keep a timely eye on breaking stories in such areas as Business & Money, Justice & Law, Energy & Environment, Government & Politics, Health & Science, Media & Technology, and National Security. A little more than a half year old, the Manhattan-based news organization says it is needed now because investigative journalism increasingly is being crowded out by the media's obsessive focus on trivia (press release).

2008: Why West Virginia is more important than you think

Lost in the coverage of the West Virginia primary is the fact that John Edwards received 7% of the vote, suggesting a growing dissatisfaction with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Not that Obama's campaign will go off the rails before the convention, but for the party's front runner to be clobbered in the final days of the nominating process is one more piece of evidence that the outcome in November is not a lock.

The Democrats have a real problem, one with a long history. There is a certain type of candidate -- brainy, nuanced in policy discussions, aloof, often impatient with the blood, sweat and tears of retail politics, who is beloved of academics and Hollywood liberals -- think Mike Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry, but who fails to connect with the average voter with an intensity sufficient to carry the day.

The Obama team can blame racism and Hillary's negative campaigning for the outcome in West Virginia if they want to, but they'd be better to take heed: it repeats a pattern that has been apparent throughout the campaign -- many white working class voters are not warming to Barack Obama.
The West Virginia exit polls, TalkLeft reports, indicate that he lost white voters 69-28. Astounding? Not really. In Ohio, Clinton won white voters 64-34. In Pennsylvania, Clinton won whites 63-37. Indiana? Whites went for Clinton 60-40. Massachusetts? Whites went for Clinton 58-40. Rhode Island? 63-31 for Clinton. North Carolina? 61-37. And the same in Arkansas, Tennessee, Maryland, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, Oklahoma, Arizona, Missouri and so on.

Obama has won the white vote in Iowa, Kansas, Wisconsin, Virginia, Colorado, Washington, Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, Nebraska, etc. West of the Mississippi all of them EXCEPT Wisconsin and VA.
Nor did Obama lose only among those sectors of the population -- older voters, white women -- unusually resistant to his charm. In West Virginia, he was also edged out in blocs that are normally in his corner -- the 18-30s, the educated and the affluent. The West Virginia outcome is not an anomaly: Obama’s white working class problem isn't limited to Appalachia; it's in the entire half of the country east of the Mississippi.

And that's not all, as the late night cable ads like to say. More than half the voters in WVa said they'd be less than happy if Obama was the nominee. Half believe he shares the views of the Rev. Wright (as, no doubt, in general, he does), and more than half think he does not share their values (expect to hear a lot more about lapel pins between now and November). Just under half of Clinton's supporters said they would not support the very junior senator from Illinois in the fall. Plus, more than half also hold the opinion, and this is huge, that he is not honest and trustworthy. Obama may have kicked off his extraordinary run for the roses with that out-of-nowhere win in 94%-white Iowa, but he is winding it up in 94%-white WVa with a potentially going-nowhere trouncing.

The Obama people should be thanking Clinton whose victory in West Virginia is an early-warning signal of what might happen in the fall. This is information to be addressed, not argued with or dismissed; if it is not addressed, soon and forthrightly, before it becomes set in stone that he is dishonest and untrustworthy, Obama stands a better than average chance of losing the general election.

If the public is suffering Obama-Clinton burnout, then nominating Clinton for vice, even if it is achievable over Michelle Obama's objections, may not be the smartest move. Writing for Political Insider, Taegan Goddard makes the case for John Edwards as the Democratic vice presidential candidate.
Ironically, by not choosing between Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton in their tough primary battle, Edwards stands as a potential healer of the Democratic party. And by remaining neutral in the race, he's also best positioned to be Sen. Barack Obama's running mate.

Here's the case for picking Edwards:
1. He's already been tested on the national stage and not likely to cause a distracting scandal.
2. He appeals to the same working class white voters that back Clinton.
3. He favors Obama's new brand of politics.
4. He could put North Carolina and possibly other Southern states in play.
5. Sen. Hillary Clinton would probably support him. With more than 1,700 delegates in Clinton's pocket, Obama needs to at least get her tacit approval if he wants to have a unified party.
Except for number 4 (does Edwards really have a "southern" identity?), this is a fairly compelling case, to which I would add one additional point:

6. The choice of Edwards would reassure the Democrats' left-leaning activists, who have been worried that the party's core tenets are about to be sacrificed -- again -- to the ambitions of an administration -- whether led by Obama or Clinton matters not -- bent on portraying itself as a Third Way.

Party activists have been bemused by the Clinton-Obama domination of the debate. Clinton was never acceptable to the Left -- some progressives are so repelled by the Clintons that they rushed into Obama's arms, although Barack's relentless gassification of the issues has made Hillary's working class hero act nearly palatable. Progressives who are not sitting on their hands while they figure out what to do next have embraced Obama hoping they can get some cred with the young voters he's turned on; all are crossing their fingers that he is not the corporatist shill he appears to be.

Edwards selection as Obama's running mate would be a step toward mollifying the doubters, at least more so than adding any of the others on the short list to the ticket as veep. Apparently, Edwards will endorse Obama tonight. Too soon, John, unless the deal is already done.

(See, Edwards Endorsement Boosts Obama's Campaign, CQPolitics, 2008-05-14).

The Law: Are drunk driving regulations rational?

Push a bike on your own property - get 4 days in jail

At the expense of sounding like a Libertarian, it seems to me that we allow our freedoms to be eaten away in small ways as much as large, by ignorance and laziness as much as by fear and intimidation. Here's a thoughtful video by a gentleman whose run-in with a contemporary manifestation of prohibition admirably focused his attention on one example, out of far too many, of the ways in which we have acquiesced in having the boundaries of our liberty proscribed to save ourselves from dangers exaggerated and unexamined.

Stand-up Comity: Chuck Hagel vs Lambchop for Vice-President

It is rumored that Chuck Hagel, the departing senator from Nebraska, one of the only Republicans to oppose strenuously George W. Bush's illegal, immoral and counter-productive occupation of Iraq and his authorization of the use of torture in interrogations, is under consideration for vice president by Barack Obama as well as, more predictably despite their differences over Iraq, John McCain.

If picked by Obama, Hagel would bring to the Democratic ticket the experience of a seasoned Washington insider (he has served on senate committees overseeing banking, foreign relations and intelligence) and the requisite record of service in Vietnam. As a bonus, his vigorous opposition to the Iraq war would reassure Democrats worried about how seriously Obama will pursue withdrawal. The very junior senator from Illinois plans to pack his cabinet with Republicans anyway, so why not start at the top?

McCain, on the other hand, who agrees with the conservative Cornhusker on virtually every other issue, can, by choosing a running mate anathematic to the White House, further distance himself from the most unpopular president in history without otherwise alienating his base.

While unorthodox, the best outcome might be for Hagel to be nominated for vice president by both parties simultaneously. Not only would McCain and Obama get to underscore their commitment to bringing a new era of comity to the nation's politics, but the rest of us would get to enjoy the spectacle of a debate between a U.S Senator and his sock puppet.

See, And Obama's Veep is...a Republican? by Mike Madden (Salon) and
Hagel would ‘consider’ joining Democratic ticket by Steve Benen (The Carpetbagge Report, 2008-06-21)

Jefferson and the rise of corporations


"I hope we shall...
crush in its birth
the aristocracy
of our moneyed corporations,
which dare already
to challenge our government
to a trial of strength and
to bid defiance
to the laws of their country."
-- Thomas Jefferson,
letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816.

Canards: Joe Lieberman is "a good Democrat"

It has been clear, at the least since his traitorous run for Senate in the 2006 general election against his party's nominee, that letting Joe Lieberman pass as an independent "Democrat" is deeply corrupting of the party's integrity and reputation. Just how far the senator's values deviate from his nominal consort can be seen in the chronicle of important votes taken since the Democrats took over Congress. It does progressivism no favor to have it tarred by a legislative record that is reflective not of a Democratic majority but of conservative dominance. If John McCain taps Jiltin' Joe for veep, the Democrats will have invited the GOP to present itself as the party of unity and comity. There's no hope of dumping the Connecticut conman now, but after November he will no longer be needed to reserve the bigger offices and inflated staffs for Harry Reid and company. If he's not the Republican vice president by then, Lieberman should be blocked from playacting the role of Democrat when the Congress begins a new run in January.

Things that don't exist in Harry Reid's world

by Glenn Greenwald (Salon, 2008-05-06)

Harry Reid was on The Daily Show last night (to promote his book, ironically entitled The Good Fight) and said that Joe Lieberman "supports us on virtually everything except the war." This is exactly what Reid has said repeatedly about Lieberman ("Joe Lieberman is my friend, and he is a good Democrat, votes with us on everything, except the war. So Joe Lieberman is easy to work with"). Two weeks ago, a NYT article on Lieberman quoted Reid praising him and then immediately added:
A member of the Senate Democratic leadership, who insisted on not being identified, said: "The bloggers want us to get rid of him. It ain't happening." He added: "We need every vote. He's with us on everything but the war."
Leave aside the insulting absurdity of talking about "the war" as though it's just one garden-variety political issue out of many. And also leave aside that Lieberman happens also not to be "voting with the Democrats" on the small matter of the presidential election. Beyond that, this claim that Lieberman votes with Democrats "on everything but the war" -- made repeatedly by Reid [and two weeks ago in the NYT by "a member of the Senate Democratic leadership" too scared to be quoted (if it's not Reid)] -- is a total falsehood, but nonetheless quite revealing about how the Senate Democratic leadership thinks.

Here are some non-war votes from Lieberman since the Democrats took over Congress in 2006:

Bill to ban the CIA from using waterboarding:
Democrats -- 45-1
Republicans - 5-46
Lieberman- NAY

Cloture vote on bill to restore habeas corpus (which Lieberman voted to abolish in 2006):
Democrats - 50-0
Republicans - 5-42
Lieberman - NAY

Vote to strip retroactive amnesty for telecoms out of the FISA bill (h/t Matt Browner-Hamlin):
Democrats -- 31-16
Republicans - 0-48
Lieberman - NAY

Vote to specify that FISA is the "exclusive means" by which the President can spy on telephone and email communications:
Democrats -- 49-1
Republicans - 9-40
Lieberman - NAY

Confirmation of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General:
Democrats -- 6-40
Republicans - 47-0
Lieberman - YEA

Cloture vote to proceed to consideration of No-Confidence Resolution for Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General:
Democrats -- 47-0
Republicans - 6-37
Lieberman - NAY

Obviously, Reid's repeated claim that Lieberman "votes with us on everything, except the war" is demonstrably false. But when he repeatedly makes that claim, I don't think Reid is consciously lying. It's just that, in Harry Reid's world (and in the world of the Democratic leadership generally), things like warrantless eavesdropping, the abolition of habeas corpus, telecom amnesty, the corrupt politicization of the Justice Department, chronic lying under oath, and the legalization of torture just don't exist. They don't matter. They're non-issues. And that is precisely why those radical, destructive measures are continuously permitted -- approved and endorsed -- by the Reid-led, Democratic-controlled Senate.

UPDATE: Several commenters and emailers, including Paul Dirks, argue that Reid views all of the above-listed issues as being part of "the war," broadly defined. Maybe. But if Reid and his comrades actually embrace the rhetorical deceit that things like the abolition of habeas corpus, warrantless eavesdropping, telecom amnesty, torture and Alberto Gonzales' behavior are all part of "the war" -- whatever that might mean -- then (a) that's even worse than the explanations I offered and (b) it makes the statement that Lieberman "votes with us on everything, except the war" all the more misleading and/or meaningless, since "the war" defined that way encompasses most matters of significance. -- Glenn Greenwald
See also: Harry Reid Still Providing Cover for Joe Lieberman by Jane Hamsher (Firedoglake). In a recent interview, the Senate Majority Leader white-washes Joe Lieberman's voting record. The rest of the story.

 
Related Posts with Thumbnails