Zuzu shreds BooMan’s piece about the Obama-Hagel-Reed love fest, the idea that it’s good for Democrats to have Republicans in their cabinets, and the notion that the Republicans in FDR’s and Bill Clinton’s administrations bear any resemblance to the kind of Republicans that Obama would welcome into one of his own if he were to win the White House.
Lambert asks some very pointed and insightful questions regarding why we tolerate the Establishment Media (my term, not his.).
Steve Benen’s “NYT to McCain: write a better op-ed.”
Benen explains in terms even right-wing whackjobs should be able to understand (but still won’t) why the New York Times rejected McCain’s screed disguised as an op-ed but invited him to write another, more substantive piece. As Benen points out:
Go ahead and read McCain’s submitted piece. It has 12 paragraphs — 11 of which attack Obama directly. Obama’s piece focused on Obama’s vision for a sensible U.S. policy towards Iraq. McCain’s submission was a hit-job, focused exclusively on attacking Obama. While Obama’s op-ed mentioned McCain three times, McCain’s op-ed mentioned Obama 10 times by name, and 17 times through pronouns…
Obama’s op-ed talked about his Iraq policy. And McCain’s op-ed talked about Obama’s Iraq policy. That may pass for “balance” on Fox News, but some outlets are looking for a little more.