Sherry Chandler

From Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake about the current race kerfluffle, Is the Press Out to Destroy the Democrats:

By loading all the responsibility onto one candidate [Hillary Clinton], as if the other had no place in it, it just heightens the antagonistic environment and makes the problem worse. Does [Matt] Bai [bloggin at the New York Times] call for Jesse Jackson Jr. to step down, or even mention that this isn’t a one-way battle? No. He’s smugly content to pour gasoline over an already volatile situation then stand back and watch it burn.

Journalists like Bai inflame these things to the detriment of the political environment and the Democratic party without any consideration of the cost involved. I realize destroying any kind of coalition that could win against the Republicans next November is an acceptable price for some people, but some of us actually do care what happens to the country going forward.

Both Clinton and Obama have issued statements calling for an end to the pie fight, which is a good thing. The responsible thing to do is to refuse to let people like Bai egg them on. We’ll see if it’s all rhetoric or if their actions back it up. But barring an Edwards resurgence, I frankly don’t see how we win the next election without both Clinton and Obama on the ticket in some order. If the antagonism we see online is any evidence, coming together again as a party without it is going to be awfully difficult.

Some generous words from Bob Herbert at the NYTimes:

With Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s win in New Hampshire, gender issues are suddenly in the news. Where has everybody been?

If there was ever a story that deserved more coverage by the news media, it’s the dark persistence of misogyny in America. Sexism in its myriad destructive forms permeates nearly every aspect of American life. For many men, it’s the true national pastime, much bigger than baseball or football.

Little attention is being paid to the toll that misogyny takes on society in general, and women and girls in particular.

Anybody who could see some of the filth that comes through in my spam comments would know where Herbert’s coming from and I recommend that you read every word of this column. He is particularly good on the way women are being treated in the military.

From Carol Lloyd at Broadsheet

The same, of course, goes for Obama, though — could we have a viable black candidate who was as angry as McCain, as aloof as John Kerry, as tardy as John Edwards, as wandering as Bill Clinton? Probably not. For “the firsts,” be they black or female or any other identity aside from our standard straight white man, the bar isn’t so much high as a convoluted obstacle course. They must prove that they aren’t some noxious stereotype of angry blacks or weak women et cetera, et cetera, even as they define themselves as fearless, freethinking leaders.

As Broadsheet noted a couple of days ago, this isn’t about the pros and cons of particular candidates so much as the fact that this election is holding up a mirror to America’s fixed ideas about gender and race. What strikes me about both Obama and Clinton is that they both embody the polar opposite from stereotypes of their gender or race. Yet for one, the identity has inspired a media myth of national redemption; for the other, a tangle of criticism and debate.

From Paul Krugman at the NYTimes:

And here’s a modest suggestion for political reporters. Instead of trying to divine the candidates’ characters by scrutinizing their tone of voice and facial expressions, why not pay attention to what they say about economic policy?

Lance Mannion:

In sports reporting you’re allowed to write about possibilities as if they were realities and about what didn’t happen and what might have happened and what might yet happen and what could conceivably happen if all the stars align and the laws of time and physics are suspended and what doesn’t stand a chance in hell of happening as if it all did in fact happen.

That’s what Duffy’s article does, treats a future possibility as a present day fact.

All political journalism these days that isn’t theater criticism or pop cultural me-too-ism is sports reporting.

And the last word goes to Atrios:

Have I mentioned I hate primary season? If I had a real favorite candidate and I felt like a supporter I’d enjoy it a bit more as a blogger. Presumably my candidate would lose, but at least I’d feel like I was fighting the good fight.

Aside from the occasional vanity issues we pursue, political blogging is largely reactive to news and events. The primaries dominate everything, so unless I want to spend my time writing about the candidate back-and-forth or the horse race there just isn’t as much to talk about.

There are issues too, of course, but at this point in the campaign it’s all about posturing, really. The two frontrunners are senators, and I wish they’d show us some of those leadership skills by engaging in a little Senatoring, but I’ve long given up hope that any of that will happen.

Here’s an interesting article from this morning’s NYTimes:

A justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court and a powerful coal-company executive met in Monte Carlo in the summer of 2006, sharing several meals even as the executive’s companies were appealing a $50 million jury verdict against them to the court.

A little more than a year later, the justice, Elliott E. Maynard, voted with the majority in a 3-to-2 decision in favor of the coal companies.

Justice Maynard, who is now West Virginia’s chief justice, and Don L. Blankenship, the chief executive of Massey Energy, were “vacationing together,” according to a motion seeking Justice Maynard’s disqualification, which was filed on Monday.

A spokesman for Massey Energy disputed that characterization.

“Both Blankenship and Justice Maynard were separately vacationing in the Monte Carlo area,” said the spokesman, Jeff Gillenwater. “They were not vacationing together. They did meet occasionally for meals — lunches and dinners.”

This frolicking in Monte Carlo while the miners they put out of work vacationed in Pigeon Forge, well, it doesn’t even pass the Scalia test:

In 2004, Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court refused to disqualify himself from a case involving Vice President Dick Cheney, although the two had gone on a duck hunting trip together. Justice Scalia reasoned that disqualification was not required because Mr. Cheney had been sued in his official capacity. On the other hand, Justice Scalia wrote, “friendship is a ground for recusal of a justice where the personal fortune or the personal freedom of the friend is at issue.”

Mr. Blankenship was not named individually in Mr. Caperton’s suit. But he was a central figure in it, and his compensation includes shares and stock options. “The monetary effect on Blankenship is potentially enormous,” Professor Gillers said, referring to the November decision.

See my review of Missing Mountains on this same date last year. Massey Energy is big in mountaintop removal.