When the Journolist scandal broke (Barack groupies conspiring behind the scenes) and it was learned that Joe Conason was among the ones participating, we wondered if there was some way he could be innocent? Conason, after all, knows full well that real reporters do not scheme and plot in the shadows on how to decieve the public. So we hoped there was some way that Joe was only loosely associated with the scandal. He was knee-deep in it judging by his "Journolist, the Rev. Wright, Sarah Palin -- and me" (Salon) -- an attempt at damage control which finds him playing fast and loose with the facts.
On a letter attacking ABC News staff for . . . asking questions . . . in a debate, Joe writes, "My sole contribution was the obvious suggestion that the letter should quote the harsh judgment of the debate published in the Washington Post by Tom Shales." Tom Shales?
Ava and C.I. usually leave it at identifying him as a sexist which is a lot more detail than Joe offered on Tom who, for the record, is not a Democrat. What is he, Joe? You brought him up. Why don't you tell the people what he is?
Again, had Barack had to depend solely upon the support of Democratic Party members in the primaries, he would never have been able to steal the nomination.
The harsh judgment of a radical is what Joe wants to reference, what Joe wants to use to back up his points?
That's cute. It's almost as cute as this passage where Joe wants credit for calling out Wright:
Finally. as a columnist who endorsed neither Obama nor Clinton during the primaries (and criticized both), I should mention that I discussed Wright on more than one occasion -- including a column that appeared on May 1, 2008, two weeks after the ABC debate, after the pastor addressed the NAACP convention:
He apparently thinks Salon readers are idiots (and maybe they are?) because he goes on to quote the column which (a) does call Wright out a bit but mainly (b) excuses Barack. Most importantly, that column was published after Wright went public, after Wright called Barack out, after Wright's National Press Club appearance dissing Barack as "a politician." Are we supposed to be too stupid to realize that, Joe Conason?
When someone tries to pull the wool over your eyes, they do so for a reason. Conason's back pedaling furiously because, as someone who documented how the 'elves' worked their 'magic' on Bill Clinton, he knows damn well that what took place was unethical, because he knows it opens him to charges of hypocrisy and it completely invalidates his body of work to date.
Joe, if you don't like that, blame yourself. You brought it on yourself and the first step to taking accountability is admitting that you shouldn't have been part of some elf workshop just because it was on the left.