Matt Taibbi

taibbi sells out the revolution

The "secret" speeches in some ways showed Hillary Clinton in a more sympathetic light than her public persona usually allows. Speaking to bankers and masters of the corporate universe, she came off as relaxed, self-doubting, reflective, honest, philosophical rather than political, and unafraid to admit she lacked all the answers.

The transcripts read like freewheeling discussions with friends about how to navigate an uncertain future. In one speech, she conceded a sense of disconnect between the wealthy and the middle class to which she used to belong. This, she said, was a feeling she never had growing up, when the country seemed to be more united.

"And now, obviously," she told executives from Goldman, "I'm kind of far removed because of the life I've lived and the economic ... fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy."
This frank, almost regretful admission rendered her more real in a few sentences than those cliché-ridden speeches about her hardscrabble background as the granddaughter of a Scranton lace-factory worker.

In a speech before the Brazilian Banco Itaú, Clinton talked about her vision for the future. "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders," she reportedly said. She wanted this economy "as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."

Does this mean we have to revert back to Jimmy Carter as history's greatest monster?

if only Morbz were around to remind us

you have to admit the podesta group email about deliberately putting in some anti-wall-street stuff to then "leak" in order to throw people off the trail was, at a minimum, hilarious.

i didn't see that one. after the 5th or 6th totally misrepresented excerpt i stopped paying attention to the new leaks

One thing that strikes me about Wikileaks is how amateurish they've been revealed and not like the sophisticated I think Assange considered himself. Their whole strategy of slowly releasing emails that have nothing explosive in them just numbed the public to paying attention. They probably thought the slow leak would bleed the Clinton campaign but they should've picked 2-3 really strong hits and focused on them.

luckily Assange is a deluded moron

my favorite is still the panicked leak in the immediate wake of the access hollywood tape

That was supposed to say "sophisticated kingmaker" having zing problems :(

i didn't see that one. after the 5th or 6th totally misrepresented excerpt i stopped paying attention to the new leaks

― Mordy, Friday, October 14, 2016 5:04 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol ya, same. half ppl i follow on twitter were & still are acting like there's some heinous shit in there, though. even smart people, which kept making me doubt myself and read another

Reminds me of something I remember reading about Bill Clinton many years ago; that he truly and sincerely wanted to help people, and for whatever reason believed free markets policy were the way to do it

People are complicated and weird.

robert rubin

Don't forget Obama put Cass Sunstein in charge of OIRA as one of his first draft picks.

robert rubin

― coffee table, "serious" noodling (brimstead)

he sincerely wanted to help people?

booming interview (i'd forgotten Tom Friedman was in the NYT audience with the Don)

This idea that somehow Trump was the fault of the media because we didn't call him out enough, or we didn't do enough negative reporting about him, or we didn't do enough to try to reach his voters and dissuade them from making this choice? They were lost to us before this campaign even started. They were never going to listen to anything we said....

The Democrats are making some of the mistakes the Republicans made. The blame is: "the press didn't do enough," or "Russia was interfering with the election," or "we made a few minor strategic mistakes and that if we clear those up everything will be fine."

While the reality is that they should be looking themselves in the mirror and saying, "My God, how is it possible that we lost a popularity contest to this person?" It should say something incredibly profound about how despised and unpopular they are. But they're not in that kind of panic mode right now, and they should be....

Look at Friedman's first question to Trump when they had an interview—he was like, "Mr. President-elect, can I ask a question?" And by the end of the interview you could see that he'd very much softened his tone toward Trump. When he wrote about that interview, he talked about how Trump gave critics "hope" and went on about how he could be influenced in the right direction etc. One of the reasons that people like Friedman survive as long as they do is because they have a magical ability to contort themselves into whatever shape is necessary to be pleasing to whoever is in power.

I can't sit here and tell you for sure that Thomas Friedman and David Brooks specifically are going to end up being Trump fanatics, but I do think it's a characteristic of that type of pundit—they tend to convince themselves over time that whoever is in power is making the right decisions....

http://gothamist.com/2017/01/11/matt_taibbi_trump_clowns.php

The headline, not the article, says hope

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/opinion/at-lunch-donald-trump-gives-critics-hope.html

inteview, with addendum on Russiamania

I remain very skeptical of these news stories whose sources are almost entirely unnamed and from intelligence services. The meaning of them is absolutely unclear still. The bombshell New York Times piece on this subject reports that “current and former American officials” say conversations were intercepted as part of investigations whose aim was to determine if cooperation or collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia had occurred. The third paragraph of that very story says they found no evidence of that collusion. So what are we talking about? What does contact with Russian intelligence officials mean? I’ve had contact with Russian intelligence officials, many times, as part of my normal reporting work (I’ve even called some of those agencies for comment!) and I’m surely not a traitor. Virtually everyone who has done any kind of high-level business or reporting in Russia has had contact with intelligence agencies, whether they knew it or not. In the extant case, was it knowing or unknowing contact? What are we talking about? Here’s the thing: If this conduct really was treasonous — and I don’t rule out that it was — why didn’t the agencies act in real time? Why aren’t they acting now? Why is this being litigated in the media? I think this is a very dangerous story for reporters. Please understand that I am not saying I don’t find it possible that collusion or compromise of Trump occurred. But the Flynn episode aside, it still feels long on insinuation and short on detail. It could equally be treason on Trump’s part, or meddling in domestic politics by our intelligence agencies. I’m scared of both possibilities.

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-revolutionary-force-of-stupidity-a-conversation-with-matt-taibbi/

But the Flynn episode aside,

^ LOL

if everyone had listened to Greenwald and Taibbi Mike Flynn would still have a job in the White House

"everyone," you mean those inveterate RS/Intercept readers in the WH?

Similar content: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-russia-story-is-a-minefield-for-democrats-and-the-media-w471074

I agree that maybe the means justify the ends with all of this Russia stuff, but if it all turns out to amount to little, that seems dangerous for media credibility. But I guess at this point it doesn't matter, and anything is fair game to throw sand in the gears of the administration?

The mainstream media already has very poor credibility among those who voted for Trump. When you've been herded into pens at Trump rallies, where you've been tagged as "the worst liars" and the crowd has been incited to boo you loudly and vigorously, then you haven't got much credibility to lose in that quarter. Since you're already the enemy regardless of what you do or say, it must be tempting to abandon some of your scruples and embrace the role.

Yeah, it seems like even if there's fire to this smoking story, Trump supporters are already on-board with buddying up to Russia at this point anyway. I guess there's no point (politically) in trying to have any kind of rhetorical high ground anymore (or maybe there never was, and I'm just figuring that out?), but that seems like such a dangerous thing to let go of. The both-sides-do-it argument always seems to benefit the status quo. Ugh. So goddamn frustrating. Is this all postmodernism's fault?

russia interfered in the 2016 US election in favor of donald trump

so vote republican

I wanted to get free shipping on something from Amazon, so I tacked on his 2016 election book--not sure if it's new writing or a collection of Rolling Stone pieces.

it's mostly rolling stone pieces. it's not the worst postmortem out there. he called comrade combover winning the GOP primary, but then fell in line with everyone else, not giving donnie wigs a chance in the general. it's interesting still to read how prescient taibbi was at times, even when expecting hillary to win. the epilogue is new and while not worth the price of a whole book, as long as you've got it on the way, at least worth reading if you want to skip the retreads

Thanks. I never read any of the RS pieces--skimmed a couple--so it'll be all new to me. Going to wait a few months, though.

I feel like Taibbi is moving the goal-posts in that article. Russia tried to influence the election. That alone is a scandal. And Trump never denounced it, he even suggested they hacked Clinton's 'missing emails'. That's an even bigger scandal. Russia might even have succeeded - though who's to say, and there are more plausible explanations. The whole thing was scandalous when it was just being brought up last spring, before the DNC leaks, before the Podesta leak, before the election, the Flynn lies, the Sessions lies, the Steele dossier. It was always shitty. But so many people, on the right, but also on the left, decided to go along with it. Not even just go along with it, but spinning it along further. How many people still claim that the DNC leaks show Sanders was "cheated"? How many people think Sady Doyle, etc, collaborated with the Clinton campaign through the primaries? Those stories were planted by the Russians, and everyone everywhere jumped on them with next to no critical sense, because it helped their immediate interests, and Clinton was going to win anyway so who cares?

So yeah, it feels to me as if Taibbi is looking at the one house on the block that isn't currently on fire and going 'it's all just smoke!'

the boredom you inflict causes piles

Didn't you promise to fuck off if I persisted? It's, like, half the reason I keep writing...

it is funny to see the things about the media's coverage of Trump-Russia he spotlights playing out in real time. I definitely caught Maddow last night very forcefully saying "AS YET"

I don't recall who said this but it was noted that if Watergate happened in today's polarized climate it would be a footnote in partisan battles. And we're basically seeing proof of that right now. The evidence of collusion is already there, Manafort, plus Stone openly bragging about it. How many times have Trump's people and Trump himself been caught lying about this particular issue? You know it's almost like there's a different standard in place.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RMFHgVN_pcg/hqdefault.jpg

if it comes out that the Trump team colluded in the hacking of the DNC (which would be the real Watergate parallel, though obviously even more egregious because of the participation of a foreign power) it would not be a footnote, I feel pretty certain of that.

I'm not sure about that, I've already heard the "but the stuff in the emails is true" take a lot already from people on the right and left. Until they started getting pressed and lied about it (and the other weird ways Trump admin people won't even make the bare minimum criticisms of Russia) I always found the idea that Trump-Putin's gov happened to have mutual goals they went about separately more believable than technical collusion; coordinating seemed like an unnecessary extra step. Troubling that Taibbi (who is being largely reasonable here) references Greenwald on this though, who's been kind of been exposed as transparently coming from a place of not wanting it to be true.

i don't even get what greenwald's deal is anymore. if his whole thing is speaking truth to power why is he all about speaking truth to the party that has none on behalf of the administration that has all of it? i understand why he spent the obama years attacking obama - bc he was the potus. but it's like he's still stuck in that gear and hasn't realized yet that the world has changed.

"none"

yes correct, none. they control none of the branches of government.

not the same as "no power" but buhbye

you're a fucking idiot

Greenwald posts and writes quite a lot of anti-Trump articles and tweets. Go fuck Bibi.

yes Bibi, he has a lot to do w/ anything anyone is discussing here, dumbshit

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/708288326063759361

so off topic but since it has been brought up i did notice early on that mondoweiss types were ridiculously optimistic about trump being good for palestine - a notion of which i think they've since been disabused. left-wing affection for trump tho is clearly a thing among a number of denominations and equally bizarre + self-deluding for all of them.

primary issue w/greenwald has always been how constrained he is by omidyar's interests and activities and political (and deep state) links

that's a thing i'd really like taibbi to talk about -- but when he and pareene left that building they had to sign an NDA (or more likely had already signed one when they entered that building)

(secondary issue w/greenwald is -- for example by contrast w/taibbi -- he's a not-great writer who's landed at a publication where he gets to call the shots with anyone editing him) (sub-editor talking here, so pinch salt at me, but i find him a very frustrating read) (taibbi's a terrific read even when he's probably wrong -- which i don't think he is here -- and very much worth listening to russia and putin) (which greenwald isn't -- GG's grasp of politics and political history outside the last decade in the US is thin) (he may be good on brazil, i'm not competent to judge: my teeth just grind when he's talking about the UK, which he knows fuck all about)

Maybe Trump didn't plan this, and it's just coincidence that where we are now – dueling accusations of criminality, investigations instead of debates, jail promised to the loser – is what politics would look like in a WWE future where government is a for-profit television program. And maybe it's not the Trump effect that has Democrats so completely focused on him instead of talking to their voters, a mistake they also made last election season.

Still, the Russia story is the ultimate in high-stakes politics. If proof emerges that Trump and Putin colluded, it could topple this presidency. But if no such evidence comes out, the gambit could massively backfire, validating Trump's accusations of establishment bias and media overreach.

In the short term, however, there's no question that Russia is bloodying Trump politically. An evening speech during the Pruitt hearings by Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar hits the typical notes.

She cleverly references a trip she made to Ukraine with McCain and Graham, both owners of key votes in future legislative battles. She then goes all out rhetorically, hinting at bombshell future revelations: blackmail, betrayal, treason.

"If we are committed to ensuring that Russia's hacking invasions and blackmail do not go unchecked," she says, "we must do everything in our power to uncover the full extent of this interference in our own political system... ."

This goes on all night. Democrats stick it out until morning, only to wake up to find that two of their own caucus members from coal country have crossed over to give Pruitt their support.

Their cave-in shows that the power of Trump's base extends even to Democrats. The two senators, Heitkamp of North Dakota and Manchin of West Virginia, both face re-election in 2018 and hail from states where Trump won handily. So much for throwing their bodies under tank treads: The Democrats can't even convince their members to forget about re-election long enough to save the EPA. The ayes have it, 52-46, handing environmental enforcement to a man likely bent on a campaign of inaction, portending perhaps a return now to the good old days of the Cuyahoga River spontaneously catching fire.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-on-trump-the-destroyer-w473144

His major point seems true enough, that if the Democrats only frame their position in terms of opposing Trump, they will make their staunch base very happy, but at the cost of appearing as if Trump is the only thing they think about or care about. The voters who only pay scant attention and don't strongly identify with either party only want to hear about what they care about, which boils down to whatever they fear at the moment, which can be job security, medical bills, or free-floating anxiety about the whole world going to hell. To them Trump doesn't automatically personify all things bad and disgusting, so opposing Trump doesn't serve as a proxy for whatever the Democrats' "real" policy is.

It's not like this is a new thing. I can't tell you how many shrill "can you believe what Boehner is doing????" fundraising emails I got from democrats. It's so lazy, and smacks of the same tactics that the GOP used against Obama (which are now backfiring now that they have to govern).

on Rooshen feeding frenzy

"If the party's leaders really believe that Russian intervention is anywhere in the top 100 list of reasons why some 155 million eligible voters (out of 231 million) chose not to pull a lever for Hillary Clinton last year, they're farther along down the Purity of Essence nut-hole than Mark Warner."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-putin-derangement-syndrome-arrives-w474771