My Interview with Matt Taibbi on His Book, the Media, the Election and His Spat with Erica Jong

Below is the transcript of my Podcast interview with Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi. I'm a big fan of Taibbi's and consider him to be one of the most important journalists in modern times. I've referred to him before as "Noam Chomsky on acid" due to his ability to make technical subjects exciting and accessible -- an important attribute in the vacuous world of ratings driven media.

The interview is based largely on his new book The Great Derangement, but also delves into his thoughts on responsible journalism, why he likes to insult the political elite, and his much discussed tiff with novelist Erica Jong.

To listen to the Podcast, click here:

This is Ben Cohen reporting for the Huffington Post Podcast, and we are speaking with Rolling Stone journalist and author of The Great Derangement Matt Taibbi. We'll be talking about his book, his thoughts on the mainstream media, the presidential election, and his spat with Erica Jong.

Matt -- the theme of The Great Derangement is that American society has essentially broken off into radically different and incompatible factions. Out of all the subcultures, which did you find the most worrying?

Well, obviously the religious right which I talk about a lot in this book, it's a much bigger factor in real political terms than say the 9/11 truth movement. In terms of sheer voting influence, they are a real significant factor in pretty much every election that happens in this country. That's certainly not the case with the 9/11 truth movement. I would have to say the religious right. They are always going to be a big deal in national politics, and even in regional politics.

One of the interesting things that you wrote about in your book is the link between the fundamentalist Christians and the Israeli Lobby AIPAC. Can you tell us a bit more about that?

This situation is this, AIPAC sort of found a fortuitous relationship with people like Pastor John Hagee whose Church I spent a lot of time with over the course of the research for this book. People like Hagee are what you call Christian Zionists and they believe that in order to properly prepare for the upcoming end of the world, America needs to align itself strongly with Israel in order to prepare for the final Armageddon in which the forces of good, which is basically Israel are going to fighting against the forces of evil, which they imagine is going to be some combination of probably Russia and Iran. So you have this theology that allows American evangelical Christians to support Israel politically. And obviously this is a good thing for the Israeli state -- it sort of solves the age-old problem of how do you get American Christians to support Israeli foreign policy. Because you know, for a long time, we had Republican politicians who wanted to have a strong alliance with Israel and pursue a very aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, based around that relationship, but it was a tough sell to their natural constituents, the Christian Fundamentalists, because obviously Israel is a Jewish State. And because of the "End Time" theology, they've solved that problem by cloaking support of Israel under the auspices of this end time theology. It's not something I think they thought up deliberately, but you do have a number of these new evangelical figures like Hagee and there are a number of authors who are writing Left Behind type books, encouraging Americans to support Israel. And there is that relationship with Hagee speaking at AIPAC last year, and now you have people like John McCain pursuing close relationships with those pastors. And McCain is a big figure in AIPAC. So it's a situation where Israelis opportunistically capitalize on this End Time movement, and built this relationship. It's not a small thing, I mean it's big enough that Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at Hagee's Church last year. It's significant.

Was this something you were aware of before you wrote the book, of a function of it?

You know, it was something I was aware of before hand, especially covering campaign politics for the magazine, one of the things that I noticed a lot was that when people argue about politics in this country, they are not just arguing because they have different beliefs, they are arguing because they have different sets of facts. For instance, someone who supports environmentalist policies arguing with someone on the Right about environmentalism, they are not arguing about whether or not it is the correct policy, they are arguing over whether global warming actually exists, or whether or not this or that threat to our environmental well being is real or not. And the reason that they have different sets of facts is because they are reading... they have their own news sources now, and I think because of the internet, and because of the loss of faith in the mainstream media, people have retreated to their own news sources and they have been able (inaudible) and become increasingly isolated from each other. And that's a difficult problem to reach when you are dealing with a (inaudible) industrialized state like ours, because when you are arguing about national politics, it really helps when you agree on what the basic facts about the situation are. We don't even have that any more, and that's what I am sort of trying to get at in my book.

One of your main points in the book is that media institutions have basically failed Americans. Why do you think they continue to get millions of viewers and set the boundaries of debate?

Well, they are always going to have lots of viewers, but I think their influence is slightly waning. I mean, if you go back to the 70's when there were only three networks and a couple of major newspapers which were setting the tone for the entire national media, that was a situation where if you had consensus among 5 or 6 major media organs, you had a consensus across the board. That's not the case any more, largely because of the internet, and because of cable TV, and you know, the fracturing of the entire media landscape. I mean, you'll see studies that say that certain demographics are more likely to get their news from The Daily Show, than they are from say, NBC Nightly News. The networks are still influential, CNN, and MSNBC, and the rest of the major news shows, they still have a lot of influence. They are only a corner of the whole new media picture now. And the blogs, and cable TV and all that are getting an increasing share of that media pie every year, so they are still influential, but not quite as influential as they used to be

You are quite scathing of the Internet culture that helped spawn the 9/11 truth movement. What are your thoughts in general about blogging and the Internet?

Well, I think the Internet, and blogs and alternative news sites are generally speaking positive. It's a great think that we have so many people watching politics, following it and doing their own investigations. If it weren't for media sites, I mean look at even stupid things like the Lewinsky scandal, where the blogs were way out in front of the national media, even on a dumb story like that. Also things like the Scooter Libby story, the blogs were really far ahead of the major newspapers. But on the other hand, there is the problem of seeing things on blogs and internet sites that are often not fact checked, and there is much less control over liable and inaccuracies of internet sites. And that creates a problem because that's what's happening now, one phenomenon that we've all started to notice is that mainstream media organs like the New York Times and the Washington Post are beginning to pick up news from the blogs , and if there are inaccuracies in the blogs, then they are getting amplified in the mainstream media. A great example of that is when, you remember that situation in the debate four years ago when Bush had that lump under his jacket?

Right.

Well that was mostly an Internet phenomenon, and that was all over the blogs for a couple of days. And then the New York Times decided to put it on the front page as a story reporting on it as an Internet phenomenon. But there was never any real source there. There was no basis for the story that Bush was getting some sort of communication from someone during the debate. It was pure speculation. And that is the sort of story that would never have appeared in the New York Times before the Internet age, but it does now. And I think that is a negative. On the whole, there are pluses and minuses, just like everything else. But, it certainly had an affect on journalistic standards, but it has also increased readership and interest in politics and general amount of information. So there are pluses and minuses.

When you were undercover while writing your book, did you ever question your own judgment while spending so much time with people so radically different and certain of their own particular beliefs?

Did I ever question my judgment in terms of the ethics of what I was doing, or was I ever starting to change my beliefs?

I wouldn't say change your beliefs, but because when you are confronted with someone so completely, radically opposed to everything you are saying, did you ever have a moment of self doubt, and think, well maybe I'm the crazy one?

Oh yeah, sure. Yeah, I mean I'm self-doubting like that anyway, all the time so, I certainly had a couple of pretty scary moments during that whole experience with Hagee. There was one day, I remember this really clearly, that I went into church, I think it was about three months into the experience, and I went into church and I could hear the music starting up in the main hall, and I caught myself looking forward to the services! And I thought that was a really bad sign! There was some sort of transformation going on inside my head that I wasn't aware of. I mean look, there are an awful lot of things about that community that are very appealing, I mean you have this community, and these people who are always there to support you and to listen to you as long as you toed the party line obviously. And it can be a very interesting experience, I got sucked into it a little bit sure, but at the same time I don't think intellectually I ever started to worry that I had been wrong all along about the overall meaning of this picture. I was just a little bit surprised about how appealing it was on that other level.

And what about the 9/11 Truth Movement guys?

No, I never once experienced anything like that, when it came to any of their beliefs. Not even for a second.

I've always been impressed with your reporting on economic issues, which is something that the mainstream media doesn't really seem to care about. Why do you think that is?

Well poverty certainly is something you don't get a whole lot of information about, for the simple reason that poor people turn off advertisers. That is strictly an economic decision with the media. I know this, I cant really get into the specifics of it too much, but let me just say that I do know a lot of TV reporters, who for instance, let me give you an example: I knew one guy who was doing a story and it involved a murder in a small town in Georgia, and there were a lot of poor people involved who were characters in this story, and they were talking a lot on camera in his version of the story. When he took it to his editors they told him to re-cut the story, and take the poor people out and have him do stand ups instead so that he would be on camera more and the poor inarticulate people would be on camera less. This is something that goes on all the time in the media, and it's not because they have a political bias against the idea that there are lots of poor people in this country, it is just that it is a fact of economic life that when people see wealth on TV, they are inclined to buy more and when they see depressing images, they are inclined to buy less. That's why golf, for instance, is such a popular sport on television because it is a sport where you tend to see lots of upper class people in upper class settings in country clubs, and you'll notice that corresponding advertisements for golf are always luxury cars and luxury perfumes and colognes and those sorts of things. And you can't sell those things when you have a lot of people without teeth on TV, it's just a fact of life. That's why you have that, it's strictly an economic thing.

Do you make a conscious effort to try and include that in a lot of your reporting?

Yeah, although I have to say that I'm probably not doing a great job of it. Just because, look, I work for a magazine that has to sell ads too, I try to get as much of that in as possible, but it's not easy, it's not easy to find places to write about poverty in this country, I think it is a very difficult sell. When I was in Russia, and I had my own newspaper, I did that an awful lot but that was of course much easier because 98% of Russia is poor, so it was pretty hard to write about anything else! But in this country it is not easy to get that kind of thing. For instance, if I wanted to do... I story I always wanted to do was to live in the ghetto for 5 months and just write a diary of what that is like, and I think that would be a very shocking story for a lot of people, but I would have a hard time getting that into a magazine. I mean Morgan Spurlock did that thing where he tried to live on the average income, and I think it was the 30 days thing he did, and that's about the only example I can think of, of something like that on television or a major magazine. It's just not easy to find someone who is going to buy that kind of stuff.

Do you see any genuine differences on the campaign trail this time around?

As opposed to 2004? Yeah, sure, absolutely, in 2004, this is one of the most disgusting things about the campaign media is that campaign journalists, they can really feel which way the wind is blowing, and in 2004 when George Bush was popular, and the right wing talk radio, the Rush Limbaugh contingent was still strong, they were very, very aggressive in routing out liberalism and liberals in the campaign trail. I mean I remember when back covering Howard Dean, and listening to Howard Dean be asked 50 times a day whether he was too liberal to be president. You would never see that type of thing this time around because now George Bush is unpopular, and the questioning is all about, do you support the war? And I think the journalists are much more aggressive in their support of someone like Barack Obama than they would have been four years ago. So I think that's a subtle difference, but it's something that I can definitely see. I think the public isn't as aware of how flighty the journalists are in terms of their support of candidates. It's not so much of a liberal media so much that it is group of political suck ups who happen to be following which ever way the wind blows on that particular year. This year, the wind is blowing the other way.

Do you think Obama vs McCain will really be any different, like the tone of the debate -- which they keep promising?

Well I think the tone of the debate is going to be very, very low. John McCain is in the unique position of both having to run against both George Bush and Barack Obama at the same time. And really the only way to win is to bring Obama down to his level and do basically the same strategy as Hillary Clinton tried in the primary season which is to sling as much mud at him and question his patriotism, and imply that he is a socialist and do all that kind of stuff. I mean, that's the only thing that he can do, so we are going to see an awful lot of that. Because when that's your only strategy, and you've got $200 million of campaign funds to work with, you are going to see an awful lot of mud fly.

Do you think it still possible to create a civil society out of the mess that has been created over the past 40 years?

Yeah, I mean people ask me this all the time. And my answer is, well America is in tremendously good shape compared to a lot of other countries. We have a functioning infrastructure, we have courts that work, we have elections that are more or less honest and valid, and we have a very powerful and innovative economy, I mean we have all sorts of great, great things going for us, and you know, there aren't people running wild in the streets and just mugging people left and right . You know, I used to live in Russia where you had officers in the military opening up the ware houses at night and taking weapons out and putting them into a truck and selling the to foreign powers. That type of stuff doesn't happen in the United States. We still have a very functioning and relatively civil society. If we made very very small improvements across the board, if there was a little less corruption and a little less stealing and a little bit less greed and violence we'd probably be fine. It's just not happening because the whole direction of our culture is directed towards making things worse. But is could easily be better, sure.

On another note -- what was the argument you had with Erica Jong about? The back and forth you had on the Huffington Post made quite a buzz!

It's funny, I had somebody, one of my friends said to me, "You're lucky the person who attacked you for being a sexist was such an idiot! (Laughs) Because otherwise you would have had a much harder time!" I don't know what that was about, I mean Erica Jong wrote this crazy thing that I had some Freudian desire to sleep with my mother because I described Hillary Clinton's arms as being flabby. If you read a lot of the sites and the campaign coverage this year, there was an awful lot of Hillary supporters who were really angry about what happened with this election season, and the perceived sexist treatment of their candidate. I think there was a lot of real anger there and I got caught up in that, I think unfairly because I'm not a misogynist, I'm a misanthrope! That was my point to Erica Jong. She said I was singling out women, and in fact I probably meaner to men in my writing that I am to women. But, there has been an awful lot of that and I think it continues to be a sore spot, especially for older female supporters of Hillary Clinton. They really think there was a conspiracy out to get Hillary and that men were out to undermine her candidacy. That may on some level be true, but I just don't whether it was true of me.

You spend a lot of time describing the physical features of the people you attack -- is there a particular logic, or reasoning behind this?

Um... it's funny? (Laughs) That's one thing. I remember when I was reading Spy Magazine when I was growing up, and they managed to make local New York society really interesting for people who didn't live in New York by kind of cartoonizing these characters and making them accessible to people. So even characters like Donald Trump, who were just real estate figures in New York before Spy Magazine got hold of them. They called him names like "Short Fingered Vulgarian," and stuff like that. And it was kind of a short hand that allowed people to recognize these people instantaneously and place them in a context they understood. So I try to do the same thing. You know, I make these caricatures of people, and a lot of it sure is gratuitous, and on some level I am trying to be funny, but I'm also trying to make is an easier read for some of the people who maybe aren't so interested in politics. I'm not going to stand up and say that it is ideologically defensible, or there isn't something that is immature about it, but it's what I do and I think on some level it makes my article a little bit more interesting, and it's also not the only thing that I do. I mean, I do do research and reporting as well.

Finally, will we ever see you on as an MSNBC analyst?

(Laughs) No! No way! I had a little bit of experience in TV this year on the Bill Maher show, and I enjoyed that, and it's fun, but I can see how unbelievably difficult TV is as a career. I would never, I mean I can't even believe people would do this every day for a living. It's so hard, and so stressful. So I think I'll pass on that thing.

Matt Taibbi, Thank you very much.

Thanks a lot Ben.

Ben Cohen is the editor of www.thedailybanter.com and a contributing Mixed Martial Arts writer to www.espn.com. He can be reached at [e-mail]

Comments

[WorkingClass]

Taibbi posted a piece on the 9/11 truth movement over at Counter Punch a long time ago. He denounced and ridiculed the "truthers". If it had occurred to him he would have said they had flabby arms. I was astonished. I had thought it was merely politically incorrect to question the 9/11 commission report. Reading Taibbi I realized its more than that. Its taboo. Taibbi cant handle the truth. I no longer respect him.

[grannysharp]

I really enjoyed this article as I had seen Matt on the Real Time show and thought he was a great guest and would have like for him to be on more, but then I am a 75 yr. old female with flabby arms ( and every thing else) and a big fan of his. In my mind a great interview !

[gulopartisan]

"I got caught up in that, I think unfairly because I'm not a misogynist, I'm a misanthrope! That was my point to Erica Jong. "

Sigh. Good luck with that. The last squalling vestige of Victoria in our culture is the assumption that women are better than men. If only I'd known that was where feminism was headed. I had a feminist snap at me, "What have you got against women, anyway?" I said, "They're human." No gain.

[NABNYC]

Sorry Matt, no sale on the Erica Jong issue. If you said Hillary has flabby arms, you were just simply wrong, should not have said it, and should have apologized. End of story. I saw Matt being interviewed by David Corn (who I like a lot) and it was obvious to me that Matt probably works with all men, and is of an age in which he actually believes he is not sexist because he's above it all, and any woman who criticizes him is stupid because -- well, because women are stupid.

Good writer, interesting young journalist, but maybe stop and read something before crowning yourself an expert on issues like sexism, or claiming to be exempt. You ain't. Most men only get their jobs, get the money, because women are excluded or held to less than 50% of the openings. In every single profession that is true. If you are a white male, you benefit from sexism. Financially. Like Cheney makes money from oil then claims he's unbiased. You men make money from sexism and you are not unbiased. Although many are unconscious.

Apologize publicly for attacking Hillary Clinton's arms. Shame on you. I did not support Hillary, and oppose her in every possible way. But that was a nasty, sexist comment and it sends the signal out to all other men that the "insiders," the cool guys, are exempt from having to avoid being sexist, avoid demeaning and degrading women. You're not so special. Apologize.

[TroubleNYC]

If Matt had to apologize for everything negative he's said about a public figures appearance he'd never get work done.

[Bettysdad]

"If you said Hillary has flabby arms, you were just simply wrong,"

Hillary does NOT have flabby arms?

[NABNYC]

Men make negative comments about women's bodies as a way to demean them and, ultimately, to control them, to make them feel bad about themselves. Plastic surgery is big business because so many women have been convinced that there is something wrong with their bodies. So they have plastic balloons inserted under their chest wall in the hope that will keep their husbands from straying. They have fat sucked out, and poison injected. Women spend millions of dollars and unimaginable hours trying to look pretty because they are told every single day that they are not good enough, based on their appearance.

We have generations of girls growing up starving themselves, binging and vomitting in a desperate effort to have a body that looks like a 10-year old boy. Women get their lips injected to be big, they get their eyes stretched to look round, they have their entire face peeled away from the skull and stretched to make them look younger.

No man has any business ever making a comment about a woman's body unless it's a nice comment, and it's directed to his wife or girlfriend only. It's so insulting and reflects such a lack of respect by men in this country that they assume it is their right to evaluate and comment upon women's bodies. This is fundamentally a hostile attack on women, and all men who join in or support that behavior are participating in a nationwide assault on women.

[SanityClaus]

Wow, how incredibly hyper-sensitive you are. And stupid. Do you think Taibbi is reading your comments? And that he will be moved to repent by your lecture?

You saw him being interviewed once and from that you were able to deduce all these conclusions about him that confirmed how much you hate him...

You should probably stay in the kiddie pool until you learn how to swim.

[Bettysdad]

I sure hope you don't have anything to do with numbers or logic.

"Most men only get their jobs, get the money, because women are excluded or held to less than 50% of the openings. In every single profession that is true."

This means that the majority of professional women are not working in their chosen field, or are unemployed.

For about the past decade, the majority of students at law, medical, dental and business schools have been women.

They must be incredibly stupid to do that, since, according to you, less than half of them will work in their field.

[NABNYC]

Bettysdad: I am a professional woman and I have seen for decades that even after getting into professional schools and graduating top of their class, women still continue to be excluded from the best positions in the field. Take law, for example, where women judges are still held down to about 20% of the positions, for no reason except sexism and discrimination, and a desire to promote young white men to good-paying jobs with authority. Those young white men will select future judges, who will also be young white men.

In law, women are herded into certain fields: family (divorce) law, poverty law, and any other field where you cannot earn a decent living. I have women doctor friends, and they too tend to be herded into children's practices or hospital work because they are excluded from joining the well-established private practices. No explanation why we don't have 50% of all positions in Congress held by women, other than sexism. Don't even bother looking at the numbers in engineering and CPAs, because they are appalling.

As far as your comment about numbers and logic, you sound like one of those men who just love to come up with stereotypical put-downs of women because it makes you feel good. But yes, I work in the field of business and real estate, including secured transactions, and have spent decades making a living working with numbers and logic. So nice try with the put-down, but no sale.

[devadasi]

I love Matt Taibbi and always look forward to reading his articles in Rolling Stone. He's edgy and not pc. Flabby arms are disgusting, whoever it is: man or woman. If Hillary led a more balanced life, she'd hire a personal trainer and get her flab taken care of. Hillary spends too much time inside her head. Ancient Greek philosophy stressed the importance of a healthy body and healthy mind: both of equal importance. And I'm not talking about implants and botox and all that crap. I'm talking about daily exercise, which everyone should participate in.

[professor]

eyerolling and bobbleheading and saying "like"
TOO much

[SlappHappy]

Taibbi is better than the average, but the snotty comments on others' physical appearances, which reappear often in his writing, are kind of odd considering prematurely balding Matt is not exactly Adonis. Maybe it's a form of compensation. His ego could use a little dampening at times.

[TroubleNYC]

I'm sure Matt would laugh at anyone describing him (probably laughing at your comment). You should read some of the satirists of the past (H.L. Mencken comes to mind). Matt is mild compared to them.

[falgiano]

I enjoy reading Taibbi b/c I know he's writing what he actually feels instead if testing the winds with his finger. He digs at the underbelly of what politicians are really like instead of all these MSM suckups. That's so rare, and badly needed.

[fymioyo]

Matt:

Well, maybe you can tell us your theory about the lump under Bush's jacket during that debate in 2004. The WH, incredibly to most though perhaps not to you, said it was caused by the way the dry cleaners pressed his suit.

You dismiss the story as an Internet trifle, but there was clearly a device of some kind -- not seen before or since on the guy. "There was never any real source there" -- ?? Um, how about one's own eyes?!

[Clarke]

It was probably a bulletproof vest. Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't the battery pack for his Batphone to Rove--what kind of advice do you think he was getting piped into his earpiece, anyway? "Stutter and fumble, George! Okay, now say something stupid."

[fymioyo]

Right. A bulletproof vest. Never visible before that night, but suddenly deemed necessary for the highly dangerous debate audience.

See the NASA research scientist's enhanced photo showing the cord running down Bush's back:
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/10/29/bulge

I have no idea what kind of communication was being passed to him, but perhaps his handlers were afraid he'd have been even more of a dithering idiot without it. Whatever it was.

[SNusbaumer]

I purchased Taibbi"s first book, the one about kicking the Donkey. I read 55 pages before it grew wings and sailed into the trash can. The man does not know how to write. Now, after reading this interview, it"s clear he does not know how to talk either. The man is real competition for Ambien.

What stupendous insights he gives us. Americans don"t just argue over beliefs, they argue over facts. Now, that would impress my 3rd grade teacher. How about this whopper: our modern media is fractured, which it wasn"t several decades ago. Did you know that? Actually, the cultural and political consensus in the US splintered in the 1960s and 1970s, this was followed by technology innovations, and then a big boom with all kinds of weirdoes screaming all kinds of nonsense and even some sense. Gosh, we must live in a weird world. But let"s don"t get too deep into our thinking. I need to keep a close eye on my computer and make sure it doesn't grow wings. It's a lot cheaper to buy another book than a new computer.

[jeplanet]

You obviously really didn't catch on to what Taibbi was trying to say about people arguing about facts; so let me try to explain it to you.
It's awfully hard to have an intellectual argument about how to solve an issue, when one party steadfastly refuses to accept that the issue even exists. In the case of global warming; it would be nice if we could agree that it's a problem, and then argue about how to handle it. Instead, we can't even have this discussion, because there are still so many morons out there (Bush) who refuse, despite study after study, to admit that we are destroying our planet. And these idiots will trumpet their disbelief as "fact", even though they are so unquestionably incorrect. So how do you have an argument? You don't, you get frustrated and give up, or at least I do. That was his point.
Maybe YOU need to get deeper in your thinking, you may be less likely to misunderstand.

[Goldie9]

I saw Matt a few times on Bill Maher's show this year and he was quite informative, and quite funny! Some great "man-in-the street interviews" regarding their opinions about the Dem candidates, and it was too funny!

[elan4444]

All I can say, is, people who are going to deleterously criticize other's appearance better be seriously hunky material themselves. Hmm, although I don't really care, why do I think this may not be the case here?

[WorldsGreatestActor]

"I mean we have all sorts of great, great things going for us, and you know, there aren't people running wild in the streets and just mugging people left and right . You know, I used to live in Russia where you had officers in the military opening up the ware houses at night and taking weapons out and putting them into a truck and selling the to foreign powers. That type of stuff doesn't happen in the United States. We still have a very functioning and relatively civil society..."

I think this is a simple yet great observation. We get so caught up in the "if it bleeds it leads" mentality of the 24 hour news cycle that it is difficult to see our society as a whole with a "glass half full" attitude. Things are never as good nor as bad as they seem. I really relate to his balanced expression of gratitude for the US.

[anywho]

To say that the "lump" on Bush's was an Internet phenom and "pure speculation" is further reason never to believe a word Mike Taibbi utters. It was NOT "pure speculation" it was fact with pictures to prove it. The Times aborted an expose.
Mike Tiabbi is nothing more than a carpetbagger - trying to stay relevant.

[jeplanet]

You just hilighted his point precisely.
It was a fact that Bush had something under his jacket while he was giving a speech. What was NEVER proven to be so, is that he was receiving talking points (or anything else for that matter) from some svengali behind the scenes. I'm no Bush fan (barf), but we can't continue to go around screaming that suspicions are "facts" when we don't know that they are.

[fymioyo]

So if he was clearly (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/10/29/bulge) wired with a device and the device malfunctioned, that's OK? Um, no. The fact of the device at all in this Wizard of Oz administration should have been a huge story. But the NYT, and now Taibbi, dismissed the whole thing as an Internet fiction.

I found Taibbi to be very engaging on Real Time. I bought his book Smells Like Dead Elephants but haven't read it yet. This interview with him (I can't get his dismissiveness about the Bush bulge out of my head) has made doing so less of an imperative.

[hankm]

Criticizing someone for "flabby arms"? This is valid commentary and opinion?

At least you admit you're a misanthrope, Matt. Now that we know you hate the rest of humanity we can take your opinions with a pillar of salt.

[Tulka2]

Oh, lighten up. Now i am old, but i remember being young. The young and fit will always be smart enough never to get old. The young and fit will never have flabby arms. It's part of the charm of youth that they live in a sort of eteral paridise. I am glad they do.

[nexus1961]

Indeed..
Methinks all the gender-aggrrieved women had better face 3 facts..
#1: Hillary is NOT the nominee.. DEAL WITH IT!!
#2: voting for McCain in revenge is so stupid, that it garuntees #3...
#3: Hillary will NOT be the nominee in 2012 either.. especially if her
supporters "Nader" this election!!!!!!

[andvoodoo2]

Indeed...
You put "stupid" and "garuntees (sic)" within 2 words of each other.

[Bettysdad]

Who said "flabby arms" was criticism.

It"s you that's being judgmental that it's a bad thing.

Typical phony feminist.

[hankm]

You're kidding, right, Bettysdad? Oh, I'm sorry, maybe I was wrong -- maybe "flabby arms was meant as a compliment. Must have missed that one.

And BTW, I am not a Hillary supporter nor am I a feminist, phony or otherwise.

I just can't stand "commentators" who add nothing but their own bile to the conversation.

Ya get it now?

[faust2001]

We chastise the media for not asking tough questions during the build-up to the Iraq War, and yet we now know that that entire debacle was concocted through conspiracies: cherry-picked intelligence, the Plame affair, etc. So why do liberals continue to chastise those who ask tough questions about 9/11? Do they sincerely trust the whitewashed findings of the Commission report, which obviates the Administration of responsibility for allowing the worst breach in national security in this nation's history? Sure, I don't trust anyone on the internet who says they know definitively what really happened on 9/11, but why the hositility towards those that ask how something that catastrophic could happen in the first place? Afraid of the implications? Remember: this administration sanctioned torture.