Presto! False Associated Press Reporting Makes Limbaugh's Bogus Pushback Sound Perfectly Reasonable
(September 29, 2007 -- 1:10 PM EDT // link // )

This is just sad.

The Associated Press has now covered the controversy surrounding Rush Limbaugh's now-infamous assertion that soldiers favoring withdrawal from Iraq are "phony soldiers." Unfortunately, the AP's reporting on Rush's pushback on the controversy is outright false -- so bad, in fact, that it goes much farther than even Rush himself did in falsifying the actual meaning of his original remarks.

As Steve Benen notes over at TPM, Limbaugh is now trying to explain away the "phony soldiers" comment by saying that he wasn't referring in general to pro-withdrawal troops, but to specific phony soldiers whom the left is using for propaganda purposes. Limbaugh has posted a transcript of the controversial radio episode, and in it, he refers to these specific "fake soldiers" later in the broadcast.

Here's how the Associated Press reported on this today:

In a transcript of Thursday's show posted on his Web site, Limbaugh said the comment followed a discussion of Jesse Macbeth, who was sentenced to five months in prison earlier this month for collecting more than $10,00 in benefits to which he was not entitled...

"He became a hero to the anti-war left. They love phony soldiers, and they prop 'em up," Limbaugh said Thursday. "I was not talking ... about the anti-war movement generally. I was talking about one soldier with that phony soldier comment, Jesse MacBeth."

In the AP's telling, Limbaugh says he first mentioned the specific phony soldier, and then "followed" with a reference to "phony soldiers." This description, of course, makes Limbaugh's pushback sound completely reasonable: Limbaugh says he established the specific context -- a discussion of MacBeth -- before using the controversial phrase.

But this is not what Limbaugh's transcript says at all, of course. Indeed, not even Limbaugh himself is arguing this. Rather, Limbaugh's transcript shows that the mention of MacBeth came long after his initial reference to phony soldiers. He hadn't established this context first at all. This is just a pathetic error.

Limbaugh's actual explanation for what happened, of course, is also thoroughly bogus. As the transcript clearly shows, he used the phrase "phony soldiers" in direct response to his caller's complaint in general that we "never" hear from "real soldiers" who oppose the war, only troops who "spout" against the war "in the media."

What's more, even Limbaugh's caller took Limbaugh to be referring to antiwar troops in general. After Limbaugh used the phrase, the caller responded: "Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country." The caller himself understood Limbaugh's meaning perfectly: You're not a real soldier if you oppose the war; "any" real soldier "wants" to be in Iraq.

It's not surprising that multiple wingnut bloggers are pretending that Limbaugh's explanation is valid, as Benen notes. But for the Associated Press to misrepresent Rush's own explanation in a way that airbrushes away the controversy more effectively than even Limbaugh's own pushback does is just deeply embarrassing. Not sure I've ever seen this happen before, actually. Correction, please.

Special thanks to TPM Reader DK (not David Kurtz) for sending this in.

To reach the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Unlike MoveOn, Limbaugh Directly Impugned Antiwar Soldiers' Service
(September 28, 2007 -- 2:28 PM EDT // link // )

John Aravosis:

When MoveOn legitimately called into question General Petraeus' honesty (he's lied before), the mainstream media dutifully covered the Republicans' crocodile tears. But when Rush Limbaugh -- Dick Cheney's favorite interviewer -- attacks the integrity of American troops dying in Iraq for our country, the most the media can muster is coverage in their "blogs." Whether it's CBS blog, the Baltimore Sun blog, or the Chicago Tribune blog, there isn't a lot of coverage of this issue in the real CBS News, the real Baltimore Sun, or the real Chicago Tribune, or anywhere else. Why the double standard? Senior Democrats have called out Limbaugh for his venom, which is usually what's needed to make a story "real" in the eyes of the MSM. So why the double standard -- when Dems are accused of dissing the troops, it's a front page story for weeks. When Republicans actually diss the troops, it's no big deal.

This is key. MoveOn's ad on Mighty Scholar-Warrior Petraeus questioned his credibility, not his service. Republicans successfully sprinkled their Deception Dust all over the story and turned it into an attack on the troops. And the media bit -- hard. As usual, the justification for covering and punditizing about the story was that Dems are vulnerable to charges that they are anti-military; therefore, the GOP's demand that they condemn MoveOn was scoring political points; and perversely, this is what made the GOP assault news.

By contrast, Rush Limbaugh actually did impugn the service of soldiers who favor withdrawal from Iraq. But because Republicans aren't vulnerable to charges that they're anti-military, this doesn't give Dems as clear an opportunity to score political points by demanding that Repubs condemn him. Therefore, it isn't as newsworthy. Yes, the Limbaugh story is getting some traction today. But it will get nowhere near the attention that the GOP attack on Dems over the MoveOn ad got.

And it's all because one party is presumed by many in the media to be vulnerable to charges of being anti-military, and the other isn't. There are plenty of people at the big news orgs who don't play along with this, of course. But in general, this presumption -- rather than the actual substantive content of the remarks themselves -- is what colors decisions about what's news and what isn't in situations like this.

The final insult is that this is a self-reinforcing phenomenon. The constant imbalance in coverage in situations like this means Dems continue to be slimed in the media as anti-military, which reinforces the presumption of Dem vulnerability on stories like these, which leads to more unbalanced coverage, and so on.

That's how this works. Sorry.

To reach the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Will White House Press Corps Ask Whether Bush Will Repudiate Rush's "Phony Soldiers" Comment?
(September 28, 2007 -- 11:44 AM EDT // link // )

As you all know, Rush Limbaugh is now coming under fire for saying that troops who favor U.S. withdrawal from Iraq are "phony soldiers."

As you also know, President Bush was recently asked at a press conference to comment on the MoveOn ad attacking Mighty Scholar-Warrior Petraeus. Many concluded it was a planted question, and naturally, Bush responded by slamming the group and saying that he was disappointed in Dems for their reluctance repudiate MoveOn's mean and nasty attack on the General.

So here's the question: Will anyone in the White House press corps ask whether Bush -- who's appeared on Rush's show, as has Veep Cheney -- will repudiate Rush for remarking that soldiers who don't agree with the President's war policies are "phony soldiers"?

Democrats, of course, are naturally eager to see this question asked. Here's the blast email that went out to reporters today from the Senate Democratic communications office in advance of today's White House press briefing:

One Question for Dana Perino: Last week, President Bush called an ad by a MoveOn “disgusting” because it attacked a member of the military. This week, Administration ally Rush Limbaugh called American troops who opposed the war in Iraq “phony soldiers.” Will President Bush repudiate Limbaugh’s comments that impugn the patriotism of our brave men and women in uniform?

It'll be interesting to see if anyone asks this question -- and even more interesting to see what Perino's answer is. Stay tuned.

To reach the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Poll: New York Times Viewed Favorably By More People Than GOP Is
(September 28, 2007 -- 11:07 AM EDT // link // )

Oh, this is too much. Check out this fascinating number buried in the new Fox News poll:

I'm going to read you the names of several institutions or organizations. Please tell me whether you have a generally favorable or unfavorable opinion of each one...

The U.S. Military: Favorable 86%; Unfavorable 10%

The Democratic Party: Favorable 50%; Unfavorable 40%

The New York Times: Favorable 47%; Unfavorable 22%

The Republican Party: Favorable 44%; Unfavorable 47%

MoveOn.org: Favorable 11%; Unfavorable 22%

So more people view The New York Times favorably than see the GOP in a positive light -- despite a weeks-long campaign by the GOP to demonize the paper as riddled with anti-military bias from top to bottom. And the number of people who view the Republican Party unfavorably is more than double the number that have a negative view of The Times.

I guess we'll have to view this as some form of justice. There's not much good to salvage from this whole sorry affair, so this'll have to do.

Rush Limbaugh On Saving Troops' Lives: "Whatever"
(September 27, 2007 -- 4:26 PM EDT // link // )

Newsflash: Rush Limbaugh just described soldiers who are in favor of U.S. withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers."

This will naturally explode into a huge controversy. Pundits like Richard Cohen will scowl darkly and demand that Republicans condemn Rush over it, just as they demanded that Dems condemn MoveOn for criticizing Mighty Scholar-Warrior Petraeus. Pundits will say for days and days that it has put the Republicans on the defensive. (Editor's note: Sarcasm too heavy-handed here. Please tone down.)

Seriously, Media Matters has a great catch: In a conversation on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, a listener named Mike said that antiwar people never talk to "real soldiers," adding that they take their cues from soldiers who are against the war and "talk to the media."

To which Limbaugh rejoined: "The phony soldiers."

Listen here. As Media Matters points out, two soldiers who wrote that infamous New York Times Op ed criticizing our war policies are now dead in Iraq. Last January a Military Times poll found that 37% of members of the military think we shouldn't have gone to Iraq, while one in five thinks we should have zero troops in Iraq or less troops than there are now. All these people, apparently, are "phony soldiers," according to Rush.

That's bad enough. But I'd also like to highlight another Rush quote from the same radio episode that I think is equally telling and reprehensible:

"What is the imperative in pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? I don't think they have an answer for that, other than, `It's gonna bring our troops home. Save the troops. Keep the troops safe. Or whatever. It's not possible intellectually to follow these people."

Whatever?

Note Limbaugh's self-professed inability to even follow the argument that saving troops' lives should be something we consider as a positive when deciding how to proceed in Iraq. This has accents of GOP House leader John Boehner's recent assertion that troop deaths in Iraq would be a "small price" to pay for defeating Al Qaeda. The point here is that for Limbaugh, Boehner and other war supporters, the lives of the troops simply aren't part of the equation in any meaningful sense, and once in a while, this dirty secret slips out.

This is perhaps inevitable, the natural extension of the view that no amount of American lives is too small to sacrifice in exchange for realizing George Bush's vision in Iraq. Whatever.

How many Republicans will come out and condemn this? Over to you, Richard Cohen. Start scowling.

******************************************************************\

Update: Think Progress issues a challenge: What lawmakers who voted to condemn MoveOn will now denounce Rush? To which we'll add: What pundits who blasted MoveOn will say word boo about the talk show host?

To reach the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

Hillary To Russert: Bill And I Aren't The Same Person, Tim
(September 27, 2007 -- 11:40 AM EDT // link // )

There was a pretty great moment during yesterday's Dem debate that has already gotten a bit of attention but that really deserves its own video for posterity. It perfectly captures the Beltway punditocracy's inability to approach Bill and Hillary as anything but a freakish two-headed political creature.

In it, Tim Russert sandbagged Hillary by reading her a quote from an unnamed 2006 guest on Meet the Press who'd approved of torture in extreme circumstances. After she disagreed with the quote, Russert flipped open his jack-in-the-box, informing her that the MTP guest she'd just disagreed with was...her hubby!

When Russert proceeded to ask whether this showed that she disagreed with Bill, Hillary offered a fairly straightforward comeback: Bill and I aren't the same person, Timmy.

Take a look:

Russert said, in an I-gotcha-now tone:

"The guest who laid out this scenario for me was...William Jefferson Clinton, last year. So he disagrees with you."

To which a visibly irked Hillary responded:

"Well, he's not standing here right now."

This was met with loud applause. Then, after Russert pressed the point that there was a disagreement here, Hillary joked, with mock sheepishness and embarrassment:

"Well, I'll talk to him later."

This in turn was met by more applause and laughter. Gotcha this wasn't.

Look, I'm not blind to the fact that an exchange like this, when handled as well as it was here, plays to Hillary's benefit in a big way, giving her a golden chance to proclaim her independence. Indeed, her campaign is touting this as "the moment." But the real takeaway here is that whatever you think of Russert's performance last night in other areas, what he did here was deeply silly.

The problem here is the premise of this little trick: That it's somehow a "gotcha" to "catch" the Clintons disagreeing about something. This idea is premised on the notion that Hillary's views should be evaluated relentlessly through the lense of what Bill thinks. And this, of course, is an outgrowth of the larger conceit that the Beltway punditocracy has tried to foist on this race for months: Namely that voters should, and will, feel the cold shadow of Bill and his Presidency as they decide whether to vote for his wife.

It doesn't matter, of course, that in poll after poll the public rejects this view. A recent Gallup poll, for instance, asked respondents whether they worried about how much or how little a role Bill would play in a Hillary Presidency. An astounding 68% said they didn't worry about it one way or the other. I'm not arguing that Bill won't matter at all to voters. It's just that in the punditocracy hall of mirrors, where pundits confuse Bill's importance to them with importance to voters, his significance has been magnified into outsized and even grotesque forms.

Policy differences between Hillary and Bill, of course, are legit topics. But setting this up as a gotcha was at bottom just a cheap stunt, designed to get a titter out of Beltway insiders. Bill and Hillary aren't the same person. Not sure why this is so hard to grasp.

To reach the homepage of this blog, where you can see many more posts, click here.

New York Times Corrects Falsehood About Dems And MoveOn
(September 27, 2007 -- 10:21 AM EDT // link // )

The other day this blog stamped its feet over a New York Times article that falsely reported that Barbara Boxer's Senate measure condemning all political attacks on members of the military "did not mention" MoveOn.

The problem with this, of course, was not just that it was outright false, but also that it reinforced the GOP's Narrative of the Month -- you know, the Dems are hopelessly captive to the anti-military left. Indeed, other media pushed variations of this same falsehood, too.

Now, in response to this blog's badgering, The Times has corrected its error:

An article on Friday about passage of a Senate resolution condemning the group MoveOn.org for an advertisement it placed in The New York Times criticizing Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, incorrectly described an alternative resolution proposed by Senator Barbara Boxer of California, which did not pass. Ms. Boxer's resolution also cited the ad and condemned it, without mentioning MoveOn.org by name. Her resolution did not omit mention of the ad.

Did the right thing. Good for them.

Opinionmakers Largely Silent About Absurdity Of GOP's Assault On NY Times
(September 26, 2007 -- 4:02 PM EDT // link // )

One of the more astonishing things about the controversy over MoveOn's New York Times ad criticizing General Petraeus has been the unwillingness of so many leading opinion-makers to directly confront the core absurdity at the heart of the GOP's ongoing assault on the paper.

The crux of the argument being made by Republicans and conservatives is that The New York Times as an institution gave MoveOn a cheaper rate for the ad specifically because its institutional position is an antiwar one and hence is in sync with that of the group. In other words, what's being alleged here is institutional ideological collusion.

This argument, of course, is batshit insane. The decisions about the price and content of the ad were made in the ad sales department. Even if the ad rep himself who approved the ad was a member of the Kovert Kos Konspiracy to end the war, and thus secretly gave MoveOn a break to further the Konspiracy's dark ends, this wouldn't in any way mean that the ad was the result of institutional bias reaching to the highest levels of The Times. Yet this absurd suggestion is precisely what many wingers and GOPers are lobbing at the paper.

Nonetheless, astonishingly few commentators are coming right out and confronting this core argument. They're getting sidetracked into arguing over ad rates and policies, as well as over the political effects of the whole controversy, rather than the merits of the controversy itself.

Here, for instance, is Howard Kurtz devoting much of a column to the whole fracas. He writes that the affair helped Republicans, adding that "the argument that the NYT aided and abetted an alleged smear provided triple bonus points for the right." Kurtz does represent the left's position, quoting lefty bloggers and adding that "liberals felt the conservative noise machine had totally bamboozled the media over a non-issue."

That's fine, but what does Kurtz himself think of this? Does he believe that this is a "non-issue"? Kurtz is a media expert. He's been covering the media for many, many years. So what does he think of the GOP's central charge here? Likewise, another media expert, Times public editor Clark Hoyt, managed to write a whole column about this affair without passing judgment on crux of the right's allegations.

What about other opinionmakers? What does Joe Klein, who rapped MoveOn early on, think of what the GOP's saying? David Ignatius? David Broder? Tim Russert? Maureen Dowd? This is the story of the week, and a storied journalistic institution we all admire is getting badly slimed. These folks know how newspapers really work. Wouldn't it be nice to hear from them about this?

Let me be clear: Yes, the Times screwed up. Yes, the paper mishandled the P.R. war. Yes, MoveOn committed a bad misstep. But let's cut through the crap -- The Times isn't being faulted because it violated its ad policies or because it printed mean things about Petraeus. Rather, it's being criticized for the alleged reason this happened -- that as an institution it's so riddled with anti-military bias that it secretly conspired with MoveOn to slime a decorated military commander during wartime. Yet our opinion-makers and pundits are talking about everything but the central allegation being made here.

Gallup Poll: Democrats Are The "National Security Party," Now Lead GOP On Terror
(September 25, 2007 -- 1:51 PM EDT // link // )

As all you regulars know, for months now pundits have hung on to the notion that the GOP still holds an advantage on national security issues, despite the fact that multiple polls have shown that this traditional GOP edge has been all but wiped out.

Now, however, Gallup has released a poll concluding that for the first time in its polling, Dems have a clear advantage on the issue:

The chart paints a pretty stark picture of the GOP implosion on terrorism and national security in the last five years. Recall that 2002 was the year when Karl Rove gave his infamous speech saying the GOP could take the national security issue "to the country." Chickenhawk Saxby Chambliss ran ads tying triple-amputee vet Max Cleland to Osama. The GOP attacks on Dems over terrorism got so bad that Tom Daschle erupted on the Senate floor. And Dems sustained more bloodletting at the ballot box on the issue.

Five years and thousands of deaths in Iraq later, the lines have crossed and for the first time in Gallup polling, Dems lead the GOP on the issue, 47%-42%. While that's within the poll's margin of error, Gallup views this development as so significant that it's now describing Dems as the "national security party." As Gallup points out, in 2002 the GOP had an extraordinary 19-point lead over Dems. The next year Bush strutted around on the aircraft carrier and the GOP held a 15-point advantage. Now all that's evaporated and been replaced by a Dem lead.

The question now is, How long before this extraordinary swing enters the conventional pundit narrative? Turning around pundit wisdom is tougher than turning an aircraft carrier, and if Rudy is the GOP nominee, the pundits will all shout in unison that Rudy's the GOP's savior on the issue. Indeed, Rudy's presence in the general election, fairly or not, could blur Dem gains in this department. But if the GOP nominee's anyone other than Rudy, and the GOP keeps clinging to the wreckage of a war that large numbers now say is detrimental to our national security, the Dem advantage could become too glaring for even the pundits to ignore.

This is going to sound optimistic to the point of absurdity. But the sight of Sunday chatters in 2008 describing the Democratic advantage on the issue -- after the GOP's decades-long edge -- would be the perfect political epilogue to the failed Bush-Rove fear-mongering era, the disastrous war it wrought, and the catastrophe it all wreaked on their party and our country.

Update: A key point from Chris Bowers: "I have a question for liberal hawks: during the time when Democrats gained on, and eventually overtook, Republicans on national security, did Democrats become more hawkish? As I remember it, during these five years Democrats have gradually and greatly increased their opposition to things like the Iraq war, FISA and the Patriot Act. Even though we are still losing votes on those issues, we are doing a lot better than we were a few years ago."

Report: Pro-War GOP Senators Refusing To Be Interviewed About Iraq On National Television
(September 25, 2007 -- 10:17 AM EDT // link // )

Senator, why do you keep voting to keep the war going despite saying you're critical of it?

Senator?

Senator? Are you there?

MSNBC's David Schuster shared some very interesting news with his viewers last night: He said that pro-war GOP Senators who are up for reelection have repeatedly refused to go on MSNBC and have directly turned down multiple invitations to appear on the network and discuss the war.

Take a look:

Schuster, singling out GOP Senators like Norm Coleman and John Sununu, said:

"If you've been watching cable news programs lately, you may have noticed the disappearance of a certain breed of guest: Specifically, Republican Senators who are up for reelection...

"Interview invitations that we provide almost daily to these Senators are now routinely turned down. The answer appears to be Iraq. These lawmakers have voted to keep the war going but when it comes to explaining their votes on programs like this one, well, forget about it...

"They've come out with public statements and press releases, but when it comes down to brass tacks, they have voted to keep the war going indefinitely."

Indeed, David. Well said.

These Senators, of course, are from the WINO caucus -- they are Waverers In Name Only who say they're "wavering" in their support for Bush's policies, but keep voting against any measure that would actually force a change in those policies.

One of the worst things that could befall a WINO, of course, is to be asked directly why he or she keeps voting to perpetuate policies that he or she claims to be criticizing. This is to be avoided at all costs, naturally.

So the WINOs have now apparently taken to avoiding venues where this might happen and where their WINOism risks being showcased for all their constituents to see. (Editors's note: Should we call them WINO Weasels?)

When Senators repeatedly turn down a chance to be interviewed on national TV -- something they'd ordinarily leap at -- you can bet that their internal polling is telling them that things have gotten really, really bad.

New York Times Public Editor Dodges Central Question At Heart Of GOP Attack On His Own Paper
(September 24, 2007 -- 1:54 PM EDT // link // )

Clark Hoyt, the public editor of The New York Times, has now weighed in with a long piece on the whole controversy involving the MoveOn ad in his own paper attacking Mighty Scholar-Warrior Petraeus. It's a deeply disappointing article. He takes a very high-horse tone in the piece, rapping The Times for violating the paper's "own written standards," which say that generally the paper doesn't publish ads containing personal attacks.

Unfortunately, Hoyt doesn't weigh in on the question that's at the center of this whole controversy: Whether or not The Times gave a discount to MoveOn because the paper's editorial stance is antiwar.

The crux of the GOP/winger assault on the paper right now is simple: For ideological reasons, The Times institutionally helped MoveOn slime Petraeus with a "subsidized" ad rate because it supports MoveOn's antiwar agenda. What does Hoyt think of this argument? He doesn't say.

In his piece, Hoyt devotes a great deal of energy to answering two peripheral questions: One, whether MoveOn paid the right ad rate; and two, whether the ad was appropriate to our discourse. Let me be clear: There's nothing wrong with answering these questions. And Hoyt does unearth a relevant fact, reporting that the paper's own ad guidelines say that the paper won't generally accept ads with "attacks of a personal nature."

But ultimately, these questions aren't what this whole thing is really about. The GOP's assault on the paper isn't about whether an ad violated ad policy or not by being mean to General Petraeus. Instead, the central charge from the GOP and its media enablers is that the paper gave a cheaper ad rate to the attack on Petraeus because as an institution it was indulging in ideological collusion with MoveOn. This idea, not whether or not ad policy was violated, is what's generating all the outrage.

The charge is pure crackpottery, of course. Do we really believe the fact that this one ad rep mistakenly gave MoveOn the wrong rate has anything whatsoever to do with the paper's institutional editorial stance on the war? This is UN-troops-in-green-helmets territory.

Hoyt gives a great deal of ink to the Republicans making this charge. But what does Hoyt himself think of these charges, now that he's investigated the situation? Here's the sum total of his judgment on the matter, buried at the end of the piece:

The Times bends over backward to accommodate advocacy ads, including ads from groups with which the newspaper disagrees editorially.

...and that's it. Hoyt almost certainly knows how ridiculous the charge of ideological collusion is. Why didn't he say so, then?

By failing to reach for a conclusion about the question at the center of this whole controversy, Hoyt succeeded only in giving more ammo to right-wing critics -- and let down the paper's readers, who deserve to hear a journalism expert like him pronounce judgment on the assumptions and questions at the core of this whole assault on the paper. Hoyt squandered a chance to use his platform to say something meaningful about the whole affair, instead focusing solely on a bunch of peripheral details about ad rates and guidelines.

Media Keeps Getting It Wrong On Whether Dems Condemned MoveOn Ad -- Howard Kurtz The Latest
(September 24, 2007 -- 11:00 AM EDT // link // )

This is kind of amusing. The big news orgs seem incapable of reporting accurately on the question of whether Dems condemned the MoveOn ad criticizing Mighty Scholar Warrior Petraeus. They keep reporting that Democrats who did in fact condemn the ad just didn't really do this at all.

The inability to get these simple facts right, of course, reinforces, and to some degree is probably a product of, the GOP's Narrative of the Month, which has it that cowering Dems are terrified of alienating the all-powerful anti-military left.

A few days ago, for instance, The New York Times falsely reported that Barbara Boxer's resolution condemning all political attacks on military figures "did not mention" the MoveOn ad. In reality, Boxer's resolution did mention and condemn the ad -- very prominently, in fact. The Times has yet to correct this clear factual error, though I'm told they are looking at doing so.

Now we've got another one. In The Washington Post today, Howard Kurtz writes:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the Democratic presidential front-runner, was questioned repeatedly about the ad yesterday while taping interviews with all five Sunday talk shows.

Clinton said she did not approve of personal attacks from any quarter but avoided criticizing MoveOn by name.

This does a fair amount of violence to reality, however. From CNN's interview with Hillary yesterday:

BLITZER: But quickly, do you want to disassociate yourself from that MoveOn.org ad?

CLINTON: I have voted against it. I mean, I've voted for Senator Boxer's resolution, which condemned that attack, and also condemned the attacks on Senator Cleland and Senator Kerry. I don't condone it. I voted to condemn it.

So, Clinton didn't utter the name MoveOn -- but she didn't need to, because her questioner had uttered it! Hillary clearly said she didn't "condone" the ad, pointed out (accurately) that Boxer's measure condemned it, and added (again accurately) that her vote for that measure was in fact condemnation of it.

But instead of noting this, Kurtz focuses on the fact that Hillary didn't actually say the name "MoveOn." Even though her questioner did say it, this is magically transformed (poof!) into the misleading suggestion that Hillary avoided criticizing the group.

Why the media instinct to report on this in this fashion? I realize that the GOP incantation that Dems take their marching orders from MoveOn has overwhelming hypnotic force, but this really is getting ridiculous.