BrendanLoy.com: Homepage | Photoblog | Weatherblog | Photos | Old blog archives

About me


I'm Brendan Loy, a 26-year-old graduate of USC and Notre Dame now living and working in Knoxville, Tennessee. My wife Becky and I are brand-new parents of a beautiful baby girl, born on New Year's Eve.

I'm a big-time sports fan, a politics, media & law junkie, an astronomy buff, a weather nerd, an Apple aficionado, a Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter fanatic, and an all-around dork. My blog is best-known for its coverage of Hurricane Katrina, but I blog about anything and everything that interests me.

You can contact me at irishtrojan [at] gmail.com, or donate to my "tip jar" by clicking the link below:

June 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member

« Boston's Jon Lester throws no-no | Main | CNN Breaking News »

Memo to the media

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I couldn't let this one go. I've just sent out this letter to various members of the MSM, hoping to get somebody to pay attention to what Hillary is doing.

Dear members of the press,

Today's New York Times highlights Hillary Clinton's claim of a lead in the "popular vote."  The article discusses the controversy surrounding Florida and Michigan, but it barely mentions the two most intellectually dishonest aspects of Senator Clinton's tally:

* Her count totally and deliberately excludes the states of Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, even though it is perfectly possible to include reasonable estimates of those states' popular-vote totals.  Senator Clinton has chosen to ignore these states, and yet she has the audacity to claim that she is the one who wants to count every vote, in all 50 states.  That claim is flatly untrue. Hers is not a 50-state count, but a 46-state count.  In direct contradiction to her rhetoric -- "we cannot claim that we have a nominee based on 48 states," she said yesterday -- Senator Clinton is ignoring four whole states that held indisputably valid elections, simply because their inclusion would give Senator Obama a combined 110,000-vote boost and thus eliminate Senator Clinton's 26,000-vote "lead."

* Her count not only includes the unsanctioned primaries in Florida and Michigan, it makes no allowance for the fact that Senator Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan.  Instead of counting Michigan as a 328,309 to 238,168 victory for Senator Clinton -- her margin over "Uncommitted" -- she is awarding herself a 328,309 to zero victory.  This margin is reminiscent of Saddam Hussein's electoral "victories," and it obviously bears no relation whatsoever to the actual expressed will of the people of Michigan.  Yet her national "lead" is completely dependent on this absurd perversion of the popular will.  If "Uncommitted" is counted for Obama in Michigan, and if Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington are included in the tally, Senator Obama leads the national tally by more than 319,000 votes.

Through both of these indefensible vote-counting choices, Senator Clinton demonstrates that she is not interested in counting every vote, but only those votes which benefit her argument.

The Obama campaign is not aggressively countering these lies, presumably because it does not want to legitimize any aspect of Senator Clinton's "popular vote" argument.  However, the press has a duty to report the truth, and even granting Senator Clinton all reasonable benefit of the doubt, her fraudulent tally bears no relation whatsoever to "truth."  To claim that Senator Clinton has "received the most votes" is not merely a controversial statement, it is an outright lie, and the press must report it as such.  To do otherwise is to actively participate in the disenfranchisement of all voters in Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, and all non-Clinton-supporters in Michigan.

I am an independent blogger, unaffiliated with any campaign and personally undecided between Senators Obama and McCain.  However, I am exasperated by Senator Clinton's use of a facially fraudulent vote tally, and by the press's willingness to play along with her risible spin.  In particular, the exclusion of Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington gets barely a mention in the mainstream media, when in fact this is the most obviously indefensible aspect of Senator Clinton's vote-counting tactics.  How can she claim to "count every vote," and lambaste Senator Obama for declaring victory "based on 48 states," when she herself is only counting, at most, 46 states?!  This lie must be countered by the truth!

I have written letters to all of Senator Clinton's superdelegate endorsers in the four uncounted caucus states, urging them to insist that she stop ignoring their states' voters.  As my letter notes, it is particularly ironic that Senator Clinton is refusing to count Iowa and Nevada, given that she signed a pledge to respect those states' early caucuses by refraining from any campaign activity in the unsanctioned Michigan and Florida primaries.  "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," Clinton's campaign manager said at the time. Yet she is now arguing that Iowa and Nevada should not count, while Michigan and Florida should. This is hypocritical and intellectually dishonest to a degree that beggars belief.

If Senator Clinton wants to argue that Florida should count, and that Michigan should count with the "Uncommitted" votes going to Senator Obama, those are reasonable arguments, and can be fairly considered.  But the inclusion of her Saddam Hussein-style, unanimous "victory" in Michigan, and the exclusion of Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, completely undermines the intellectual underpinnings of her argument, and it is your duty as members of the press to point this out.

I urge all members of the media to provide honest, objective, and thorough analysis of this issue, rather than granting the Clinton camp's unrebutted spin a veneer of legitimacy that it plainly does not deserve.

Sincerely,

Brendan Loy
"Irish Trojan in Tennessee"
http://blog.brendanloy.com/

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/38891/29262246

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Memo to the media:

Comments

Obama's popular vote lead with FL, IA, NV, ME, and WA (excluding MI): 411,564
Obama's margin of victory in Cook County, Illinois: 429,052

what was hillary's margin of victory in arkansas and new york county?

Sorry to beat a dead horse

Hey, you leave Barbaro Eight Belles out of this! What did he she ever do to you?!?!

Clinton won Arkansas by 136,539. CNN didn't have New York County listed

You are undecided between McCain and Obama? Really?

So am I, Marty. :) He's not alone. And if either McCain or Obama wants to win, they need to figure out how to ensnare voters like Brendan and me.

But McCain? I mean come on....it's John McCain! What reasons could you have to support him?

Frankly, I think you're attributing way too much political clout to Hillary's claim of a lead in the popular vote. Since leaders in the media like Tim Russert have declared Obama the winner, there's not much need to debunk her last ditch attempts at winning, and the media recognizes these attempts for what they are: last ditch efforts.

Marty, How about experience, integrity, honesty, willingness to work across party lines, willingness to buck the party position when it doesn't make sense to him/his constituents.

I personally disagree with McCain on a number of positions, but unlike Hillary or Dubya I can atleast see him as honest and trustworthy, something we need in our next President (of course i believe the same is true of Obama and I agree with him on many more issues which is why i support him)

Excellently done. If you are ever in the DC area, I owe you a beer for the hard work on this.

As far as McCain vs. Obama... I could see how there could be some consideration of either one if you consider the old John McCain... McCain before Bush's tax cuts were good, when negotiating with Iran was a good idea (instead of bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb, bomb iran), and even the semi-recent McCain that took a stand against torture. But 2008 McCain? It's getting tougher and tougher.

I will say, I think that John McCain will fight Obama cleanly. He certainly isn't a scum bag. But I think he has pandered to his base a bit too much and lost a some credibility in the process.

On a related note, an increasing number of confrontations like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/20/mccain-confronted-with-ne_n_102614.html

are popping up. This events certainly don't jive with what I thought I knew about McCain, but they are certainly making me rethink how I view him and his abilities.

Damn, I guess I should link that properly.

"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief."

Brendan, if you didn't already, send the letter to Chris Matthews. Seriously.

yea (and Gardner), per NY State Board of Elections official results, Clinton's margin over Obama in New York County (aka, the Borough of Manhattan) was 25,445: 155,662 to 130,217. Her margins in Bronx and Queens Counties (and Boroughs) were larger. / Her overall NYC 5-county/borough plurality was 114,043 (527,941 to 413,898), whereas her Suburban-&-Upstate 57-county win was by 203,434 (540,555 to 337,121). / Any other Questions? :)

Thanks for that link, Jim. It highlites a frequent mistake in our Iranian policy. The structure of their government can be found here:
Iranian Government Structure
As recent shock NIE report detailed, those who hold the power in Iran have a conservative and pragmatic foreign policy. The presidency in Iran is a different branch of government, which doesn't have control over foreign policy.

wow thanks joe! wasn't expecting an answer there. im suprised the margin was that small in new york county, i thought thats where her base was strongest. would i be accurate in saying she ran up a lot of votes in the "appalachia" section of ny?

sorry.... use this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

I did, in fact, send the letter to both chris.matthews@msnbc.com and hardball@msnbc.com. It bounced from the former (which I found on some outdated list that somebody compiled), but apparently went through to the latter.

Good, Brendan. / You might also considered sending it to MSNBC's very knowledgeable chief Numbercruncher, Chuck Todd, if there's an email address for him somewhere. (I think his title is Political Director. Anyway he's the NumbersNerd, including re the alleged CPV :)

"...thanks joe! wasn't expecting an answer there."

Hee hee. Thought Not. :) Most welcome, yea.

"im suprised the margin was that small in new york county,"

Excellent. Mission accomplished: My work here is Done :>.

(But not Really: stay tuned, yea, you've got me Interested now so I'll Try to come up with a bit More pertinent data & if successful, I'll Be Back :)

National Review linked, albeit to sorta kinda make fun of me. :)

Brendan - you started out real strong, credible, sincere ... and then you *had* to say "However, the press has a duty to report the truth, " which just marks you as a moonbat-in-training ... (grin) ...

Yes, the Press had a duty to report the truth - but not enough people held them to it, and the result is the LATimes/NYTImes/WaPo axis ...

It's a really nice theoretical duty, now, that I would like to again see become an actual respected and observed duty ...

Talking of theoretical versus actual, Jim, you linked to "McCain insisted that ultimate political authority in Iran rests with Ahmadinejad -- even mocking Klein when he challenged him on it. In fact, according to the CIA's World Factbook, ultimate political authority in Iran rests with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, not the president. " - and copndor seems to agree with you, with a diffferent cite ...

Yup, the theoretical ultimate political authority for the Federal Budget rests solely with the Congress - how many in this country believe that Congress is responsible for the Federal Budget ? Most seem to blame the President for the Federal Budget (or give him credit for it, as long as he isn't Bush) ...

A lot of Obama supporters are waxing positively Clintonian in their parsing of his position - along the lines of "But he didn't name Ahmadinejad by name" - which, while a true statement concerning the debate last July, ignores that he, Obama, did commit to meeting unconditionally with the leaders of a number of contries which included Iran ... I suppose he must have meant the Iranian Women's Suffrage Movement leaders ? Or the Iranian leaders of their free Trade Union movement ?

Ahmadinejad is a figure head, akin to the goat that is mayor of a Texas town. Nobody expecting to do business with Lajitas would talk to the goat.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the ramblings of a right wing nut-job:

Yes, the Press had a duty to report the truth - but not enough people held them to it, and the result is the LATimes/NYTImes/WaPo axis ...

Nameless One - should we take it that your failure to provide *any* counter-example to the thesis shows your agreement with the thesis ?

Your response might as well be from someone on the editorial staff of the LA Times ... it would fit on page A-4 or A-6 ... (people tend to read the odd-numbered pages more) ...

Oh Alasdair, you silly deluded old man. I don't need to provide any counter examples, you are the one asserting the thesis, you need to support it. I should add that blog posts and articles from biased right wing sources probably aren't going to do much to help your case. I realize that your whole world view rests on the idea of some vast conspiracy trying to keep the Right's "Truth" under wraps or something, much like the Soviet worldview relied on much of their anti-West propaganda being true, but sadly for you, and really i feel bad for you, just like the fallacies of communism, I'm afraid your black and white, Right is right world view is doomed to failure. Cheer up though, once you accept that, you can move away from the fear based world of the GOP and start looking towards a more positive future.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the ramblings of a left wing nut-job.

Nameless One - sorry to disappoint you, but I *did* provide support for my thesis - I cited the LATimes, the NYTimes, and the WaPo, as examples of what happens when the Press isn't held to the truth ... and their respective circulation figures also support my thesis ...

I will also point out that the intelligent comenters on this blog are eminently capable of (and practised at) taking articles from biased sources, and seeking corroboration or counter-examples ... it's the more D-listly ones that are not capable of reading anything from outside their echo-chamber ... "La la al al al, biased right-wing sources" really doesn't cut it as incisive response around here !

Still, your spelling tends to be better than that of the Charter D-Listers ... gotta give you credit where credit is due ...

Oh - and kudos on speaking truth to power ! "I should add that blog posts and articles from biased right wing sources probably aren't going to do much to help your case. " - great way to win friends and influence people on a blog post's comments !

The comments to this entry are closed.

Friends & family