by Matt Stoller, Tue May 09, 2006 at 01:04:38 PM EDT
Remember when the wingers freaked about a portrait of Clinton in which his wedding ring wasn't visible? Sorry, did I say wingers? I mean journalists and wingers.
I'm sure they'd treat Bush the same way, right?
I got this pic Via the Buzz:
He's just not wearing it.
He wears it on his left hand, as you can see from these photos.
Is Laura mad? Will NBC breathlessly rush to find out?
Tags: George W. Bush (all tags)
There's a sordid joke in there to be told, but I won't say it. Thinking about it disgusting enough.
Is it just me or are his hands all blown up like balloons? Maybe why he's not wearing a ring, but what could cause that kind of symptom?
Exactly what I was thinking. I wouldn't be able to get my ring on, either, if my hands were that distorted.
Why oh why won't Kathleen sit down for a "better know a district" with Colbert? Can you imagine the comedy gold from that one?
maybe he's telling Katherine, and her newly enhanced cleavage, sumpin' bout his "think tank".
I'm guessing the answer is some combination of (1) Clinton's picture was an official portrait, not simply a picture from a day he went out without a ring; and (2) Clinton had well-known infidelity issues. Come on, it's not that slow a day at MyDD.
What frustrates me about the media is not that they won't obsess over the inconsequential details of Bush's life the way they did with Clinton; it's the fact that they had time to bring up these stupid issues with Clinton and they won't even examine actual violations of law and the Constitution where Bush is concerned.
But, I'm sure they'd tell us, it's all the public's fault. All they care about is sex and juicy scandals. Violations of the Constitution, yawn, that's for the brainiacs on the nerd patrol.
I don't think we were a very serious country in the 90s. These days we are unserious in a much more depressing way.
We all agree that there are more important issues to look into than Bush wearing his wedding ring. The reason we bring stories like this up is to ask the question, "Why did the media obsess over Clinton, but does not over Bush?"
But, I'm sure they'd tell us, it's all the public's fault. All they care about is sex and juicy scandals. Violations of the Constitution, yawn, that's for the brainiacs on the nerd patrol.
Journalists and pundits always have ready explanations for why Clinton's behavior was different and more newsworthy. But those explanations are pure bullshit. If Bush was the one having an affair and Clinton was violating the Constitution, the media would be telling us how journalists ALWAYS give presidents a pass on sex issues but Constitutional crises demand our full attention.
That is why situations like this, where the behavior in question is nearly identical, are so illustrative of the bias. Sure, the media will still offer up bullshit ways to distinguish the two situations. If any of the facts were reversed, the media's rationale would flip-flop. If Clinton was the alcoholic and Bush the philanderer, they would say that a drinking problem is more important than a personal sexual affair. If Bush was in the portrait and Clinton in the photo, they would say that having the ring hidden by the pose isn't as important as clearly not wearing it. There is always a bullshit excuse at the ready.
It is vital for Democrats to neither buy into the bullshit rationales nor stupidly offer up their own. Indeed, we need to actively debunk the bullshit as it comes.
If they only care about "simple" stories then why did they obsess about Whitewater, which nobody understood for a second?
If it is because money is exciting then why the lack of interest into missing Iraqi pallets of cash? But why the relentless interest (after the fact) into the UN food-for-oil program? Or into the RNC letting rich donors sink Japanese fishing boats with USN submarines?
If they only care about sex scandals then where was the inquiry into Gannon?
If gay sex stories are off limits then why no interest in the Cunningham hooker story? Or the possible relationship between Cheney and the mysterious Ambassador he hunts with?
I could go on all day. It is why we have to push the media on these seemingly superficial stories.
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
18 Comments