Hey, don't worry.  Michael Goldfarb is on the case.

Undoubtedly, Kristol's story will be repeated ad nauseum on Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. until it begins to sound like fact. Since the truth will never be acknowledged by those perpetuating the lie (even after the entire story has been definitively discredited), Kristol will have done his job. Thanks indeed NYT!

Great moments in Kristol featured a new addition on Sunday, too, when on "This Week" Kristol made special point to mention Obama's name every time he talked about the Spitzer scandal. The highlight was when he said, and I paraphrase, "Spitzer's campaign slogan was, 'Day One, Everything Changes.' Sounds a little like Obama, cackle cackle!"

Obviously, Kristol has learned to apply his "always mention Saddam when talking about al-Qaeda" schtick to domestic politics.

I sure hope someone remembers to mention this at the next self pitying "why is the MSM's market share shrinking?" forum.  

" He publishes factually false, easily disproven smears that he picked up "

What's the big deal?

He balances the rest of partisan propagandists who publishe factually false, easily disproven smears against Clinton.

Moreover, you Christopher Orr, and the rest of TNR  are partisan propagandist who publishe factually false, easily disproven smears against Clinton every day.

So, please give me a break with your fake outrage.

Not "easily disproven".  Newsmax stands by its story, saying that Obama could have attended either the 7:30 A.M. (CST) or 6 pm. service.  

I think thomsondavid is back as jacobtl...

Jacob, are you serious? Hate to break it to you, this New Republic journal you've been reading... it's not a newspaper.  It's a "Journal of Politics and the Arts," and its contributors are part of the Commentariat.  That means they, like, provide commentary, many times opinionated.  

So they're perfectly entitled to express a preference (btw, "partisan" refers to interparty conflicts, not intraparty disputes).  But what about these "factually false smears against" of which you speak? Examples please?

The NYT has admittedly been on factually shaky ground with the McCain-lobbyist thing, but with Clinton?? They endorsed her for Christ's sake! You Clintonistas are sore losers.  

You guys want more favorable news coverage?  How about having Hillary open up a bit, cut the bullshit, and get her ass grilled by 30 reporters for an hour and a half.  Or is that just too *beneath* Mrs. Inevitable?

jacob,

Did you have some actual examples in mind of "factually false, easily disproven smears against Clinton" that Chris has written?  I assume if he and the rest of TNR are coming out with such smears every day, there should be no shortage of examples for you to choose from.

This isn't Obama-Hillary right now, it's Obama-Republicans. Maybe we can say, in the likely event that he's the nominee, it will be better for all of the Democrats, including Hillary supporters, if this thing doesn't stick. This is what we're talking about when we're referring to "tearing the party apart."

Let me take back "factually". I don't want to play this game.

Let's agree that  Christopher Orr and Kristol  are both  hackish partisan propagandists.

BTW,  Kristol   is a part of the Commentariat. He is not a reporter.

BTW, Hillary  had her  ass grilled by all kind of reporters, Congress and Congress and independent counsel.

What, factually inaccurate and politically biased material in the New York Times? I'm shocked. Shocked.

"I have a hard time imagining any of them putting together this lazy a sequence of words...."

BS meter, going through the roof. In terms of laziness and lack of editing, Tom Friedman is easily the worst OpEd writer among the major English language publications. Matt Taibbi had a hilarious takedown of one of Friedman's embarrassments a few years back-- google it and have a good laugh.

As to the rest, Bob Herbert is worse than a joke-- he's ignored. When Krugman strays from economics, he tells his own whoppers. (Race explains every political outcome of the last 30 years-- "yes, Virginia, it's that simple." Right.) Dowd is Dowd. Her feline pal Brooks has his good days.

One of the (few) nice things about the political blogosphere is that millions of people, having tried their hand at offhand political commentary, realize how easy it actually is, and how utterly lame are the majority of posts, er, I mean OpEds, written by the supposed heavyweights of opinion journalism. They're no heavier than your average well-read bloviator with access to a modem.

"They're no heavier than your average well-read bloviator with access to a modem."

I beg your pardon.

jacob...

"Kristol is a part of the Commentariat. He is not a reporter."

That's right, and I think most of the criticism of him is literary.  As Fallows says, "I'm saying nothing about the content here...I am talking instead about the breathtaking banality of expression."

jm, I could name off the top of my head about 20 TalkBackers who could write as well, and interestingly, as any of the NYT regulars.

There's a very simple test for same: the price mechanism. Pinch tried to apply it to his OpEd stars' content (TimesSelect), and they failed the test. Next to nobody would pay even a pittance for Tom/Mo/Bob etc's stuff. I'd be willing to bet good money that a lineup of an equal number of TalkBacker all-stars would fetch more money from the marketplace than TimesSelect's crew did.

I think the difference is, that they show up and meet deadlines...and, of course, that they went to journalism school or were English majors and got the inside track from the beginning.

Anyway, I took umbrage because I happen to be a well-read bloviator with access to broadband, and fiber-optic at that. Modem indeed...