Dec 15th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Shailagh Murray Advocates Collective Guilt
Stunning stuff from The Washington Post’s Shailagh Murray:
There isn’t a reasonable person around who thinks this scandal will taint Obama in any meaningful way, but at the very least, it reminds people of the political world from whence he came. This story could be a useful preamble to something bigger down the road.
So even though the scandal doesn’t taint Obama, it taints him anyway because it taints all 12.8 million people who live in Illinois?
38 Responses to “Shailagh Murray Advocates Collective Guilt”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
Environment
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
Infrastructure
International Law
International Relations
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NATO
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
Sweden
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 15th, 2008 at 11:56 am
See, that right there’s the problem with American politics: We treat our politicians like we treat our movie stars. Why don’t they just outsource this shit to Us Weekly and get it over with?
December 15th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
“A useful preamble to something bigger down the road”?! Useful for manufacturing a ridiculous media narrative? How can a supposed journalist write that without dying of embarrassment? Do we have any real journalists anymore?
December 15th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I think the main way this (potentially) touches Obama is the idea that he might have seen, but not reported, corruption by other people. Obviously this would be much less of a big deal than personally practicing corruption, but it does raise some questions.
Obama is trying to coexist in a world with a lot of corruption. That he apparently gets things done without getting dirt on him is admirable. But we should ask more from our leaders. If the whole underbelly is seedy and corrupt, Obama should be playing a proactive role in airing these problems, as he has a powerful position and a front-row seat to what’s going on in Washington.
Not to mention millions of online supporters who, I think, would react positively to this sort of thing.
December 15th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
The desperation of the media to tie this Blago mess to Obama in some concrete and damaging way is reaching insanity levels.
December 15th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
It doesn’t seem that insane to me. Residents of IL bear some of the taint of the corrupt politics of their state, exactly the same way that AK voters are tainted by having Ted Stevens and Sarah Palin as elected officials, the same was that the US is tainted by having elected and reelected George Bush. It’s nothing absolute, but it is there.
December 15th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Also, damnit, she said “from whence.” If you want to sound all archaicly knowledgeable use the damn word correctly. Whence assume “from” thus adding a from is redundant.
Here is the less judgemental American Heritage Dictionary on the issue:
whence (hwěns, wěns) Pronunciation Key
adv.
From where; from what place: Whence came this traveler?
From what origin or source: Whence comes this splendid feast?
conj.
Out of which place; from or out of which.
By reason of which; from which: The dog was coal black from nose to tail, whence the name Shadow.
[Middle English whennes : whenne, whence (from Old English hwanon; see kwo- in Indo-European roots) + -es, genitive sing. suff.; see -s3.]
Usage Note: The construction from whence has been criticized as redundant since the 18th century. It is true that whence incorporates the sense of from: a remote village, whence little news reached the wider world. But from whence has been used steadily by reputable writers since the 14th century, most notably in the King James Bible: “I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help” (Psalms). Such a respectable precedent makes it difficult to label the construction as incorrect. Still, it may be observed that whence (like thence) is most often used nowadays to impart an archaic or highly formal tone to a passage, and that this effect is probably better realized if the archaic syntax of the word—without from—is preserved as well.
December 15th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
But we should ask more from our leaders. If the whole underbelly is seedy and corrupt, Obama should be playing a proactive role in airing these problems, as he has a powerful position and a front-row seat to what’s going on in Washington.
I agree. It’s not like the president-elect has anything important to do! More speeches! More stern looks! Let’s find that white wom…um, trail of corruption!
December 15th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
How does that moron have a job?
December 15th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Murray has been a useful idiot before:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/20/kurtz_murray/
And I read through more of that execrable chat session you linked to… She’s really awful. I can only assume that she got her job through nepotism. I *hope* she got her job through nepotism, at least at various points along the way, since the alternatives would be worse.
December 15th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Actually, in context her quote isn’t that bad:
Richmond, Va.: I guess it’s just in the nature of politics to want to attack the opposition, but I really am appalled (not shocked) that the Republicans want to try to taint Obama with the Blagojevich scandal. They will look foolish if it all turns out to be nothing. While they may have some legitimate (from their perspective) opposition to any number of Obama’s policies, tainting with this kind of thing is just something we don’t need now. Don’t they see that?
Shailagh Murray: The Republicans are responding in a totally reasonable way — they are wildly overreacting and hoping the facts catch up with their hyperbole. There isn’t a reasonable person around who thinks this scandal will taint Obama in any meaningful way, but at the very least, it reminds people of the political world from whence he came. This story could be a useful preamble to something bigger down the road. I’m not saying it will turn out that way, but you have to push. The same way the Dems are pushing on Coleman in Minnesota right now.
Isn’t that what Republicans are trying to do?
December 15th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
If you regularly read her chats, what you see is that Shailagh is an incredible cynic. She knows it’s wrong, she acknowledges things are wrong and then she says tough sh*t…that’s the game. Look at her responses to Fitz as a hero, or new Rasmussen poll on Obama/Blago.
December 15th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Well, it’s a kinda dumb thing to say, but I think it’s pretty clear that she’s referring not to the entire state of Illinois, but rather to the (apparently rotten-to-the-core) political machine. But, to be clear, it’s still dumb to say that a story that doesn’t implicate Obama could in any way implicate him more down the road. In other words, he is vulnerable to the Illinois corruption talking point, but no more so than he was before this.
December 15th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
All politicians of both parties anywhere in Illinois should resign effective immediately. All citizens of Illinois must pledge to not run for office, until such time as this controversy has passed. This should probably be at least 10 years without a single politician, appointee, or judge. Illinois should be run by the efficient and moral state of Alabama.
December 15th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I’m absolutely mystified as to how a story starring a guy who was caught on tape cursing out Obama for not being a part of his corruption is somehow being treated by everyone in the media as bad news for Obama.
And what kind of false equivalence is this?
Coleman is part of an FBI investigation that is “probing whether financier Nasser Kazeminy tried to steer $100,000 to Coleman, a Republican, through his wife’s Minneapolis employer” It’s basically an investigation into whether Coleman took a bribe. So, no, the situations are not at all the same. One is a fact-free allegation of corruption, and the other is based on actual facts including an open FBI investigation!
And Jesus Christ, do they actually believe responsible reporting consists of: Illinois is corrupt, Obama is from Illinois, therefore Obama is corrupt?
I’ve got one: newspaper reporters are stupid drunks, Shailagh Murray is a newspaper reporter, ergo…
December 15th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
from whence he came
hey irregardless, she had a stupid point to make.
December 15th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Here’s Shalleigh on the shoe-throwing incident
Shailagh Murray: Yes — not just for the potent symbolism of what he is leaving behind in Iraq, but because he answered with humor. Which tells us that, after a long eight years, Bush doesn’t seem to have changed much.
Bush was finally confronted, albeit in a small symbolic way, with the consequences of his mendacious incompetence and recklessness, but he responded with “humor”. Isn’t that cute?
Bush isn’t the only one in DC who doesn’t comprehend the gravity of the last eight years.
December 15th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
As David pointed out, throwing “from” in front of whence is redundant. The benefit of catching writers doing this, though, is knowing they don’t know how to use the basic tools of their trade relieves me of the need to seriously consider anything they write.
December 15th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
A political scandal taints just about every politician because it confirms people’s stereotypes about them. Just like whenever a lawyer gets caught stealing client’s money, it brings dishonor on the profession. Given that the guy is of the same party as Obama and from the same area, connections get made. If the parties were reversed, do you really think democrats would just sit around with their mouths shut?
December 15th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
What does the Blagojevich (by the way, is it true blagoje is Serbian for “toast?”) mess do to Abraham Lincoln’s hiatorical reputation? Will future gradeschoolers be reminded of the political morass “from whence” he came?
December 15th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Useful to Shailagh Murray.
December 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
“Not to mention millions of online supporters who, I think, would react positively to this sort of thing.”
Obama’s biggest campaign contributor was the financial services industry. You need to spend a lot more time at opensecrets and learn how thing really work.
December 15th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
It’s ridiculous to link Blagojevich and Obama. The only linkage between them is that they are both close friends of Tony Rezko.
Oh, wait, never mind …
December 15th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
kafka, be more explicit (I hope you’re not relying on that ignorant Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac nonsense in which contributions from employees and PAC contributions are conflated and characterized as “contributions from Fannie and Freddie”)
December 15th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
If the parties were reversed, do you really think democrats would just sit around with their mouths shut?
No, but I think that Halperin et al. would ignore it.
December 15th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Shailagh Murray is da devil … or Michael Scherer’s clone.
December 15th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
The ‘political world’ referred to is the Chicago machine. It does exist Matt, even if you’d prefer to keep your head in the sand.
Rahm is on tape. Let’s see the transcripts before deciding whether there is any taint.
December 15th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
To paraphrase Shailagh Murray:
Very few people actually believe that Obama is involved in this particular scandal. But it will remind people of how corrupt the Chicago political machine is, and it will make people question whether Obama really could have advanced as far in Chicago, and from there to the national stage, as he did without getting his hands dirty.
Moreover, if it so happens that a scandal involving Obama occurs, this gives the GOP time to work out how to capitalize on it.
December 31st, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Folks, other blogs are also picking up a previous comment from this wretch about Scooter Libby. From we see the following:
Seeing Murray’s eagerness to tolerate phony claims of corruption in the hopes they will prove “useful” in reporting on a hoped-for presidential scandal later, I immediately flashed back to her comments in the summer of 2007, reacting to the actual corruption of a President commuting the sentence of a criminal in his own administration:
Apparently her enthusiasm for White House scandal depends greatly on which party is occupying the White House.
December 31st, 2008 at 4:14 pm
In context though from how she starts, it looks like she is saying that is how the Republicans view it, in terms of their tactical vision (the common device of wording in the perspective of a group under discussion.) Read her entire paragraph in response to the question.
January 15th, 2009 at 2:35 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
laptop battery
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:19 am
levitraExcellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:45 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:19 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:24 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:16 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:26 am
I want to say – thank you for this! viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Hello everyone. Innovation has nothing to do with how many R&D dollars you have. When Apple came up with the Mac, IBM was spending at least 100 times more on R&D. It’s not about money. It’s about the people you have, how you’re led, and how much you get it.
I am from Marshall and learning to read in English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “Find exclusive airline forums dedicated to travel chat, airline news and frequent flyer.”
With best wishes
, Kareem.