Joe Hallett once wrote a column that implicitly accused me of engaging in hate speech by suggesting that I had written about an Ohio Democratic operative’s sexual orientation as a means of a personal attack.? Of course, Hallett’s column carried the charge without citing anything I actually said.? In reality, the post in question didn’t discuss anyone’s sexual orientation at all.? Second, Hallett never bothered to contact me about his column.? Then, he refused to return my phone call or my e-mails requesting a correction.

So, it’s no surprise to see Hallett willfully being played, yet again, for the purposes of a Democratic party operative’s motives.

As we, and just about every other Ohio progressive blog has pointed out, today Hallett reported that former Obama for America campaign advisor David Plouffe endorsed Lee Fisher.

What Hallett initially didn’t point out, until the blogs did, was that there were two things unusual about the endorsement: 1) it’s rare for political operatives to make endorsements; 2) it’s rare for political operatives to endorse their own client.? Plouffe’s political consultancy firm, where he is still a senior advisor, is employed by Fisher’s Senate campaign.

And yet, initially, Hallett missed that in his breathless reporting about the significance of this endorsement (he’s since edited his initial report and retitled it as “Plouffe endorses his Ohio client for Senate.”)

You can see the hack job because the only thing he bothered to change from the initial post is the headline and the first paragraph where the Brunner campaign pointed out that Plouffe was essentially endorsing his own client:

Plouffe’s endorsement added to the growing support Fisher has picked up from establishment Democrats, including Gov. Ted Strickland and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who is hosting a Washington fund-raiser for Fisher on Monday.

Hallett then thinks its remarkable to note that a highly successful political consultant doesn’t mention his client’s opponent in his fundraising pitch letter where the consultant endorses his own client.? Yes, in Hallett’s world, the endorsement is still important even AFTER you’ve learned of the obvious bias of the endorsement.

Hallett’s mistake is simply inexcusable.? Fisher’s campaign, in a prior press release back in April, noted Plouffe’s tie to the campaign staff as a sign of the campaign strength:

AKPD, the firm founded by Obama campaign senior strategist David Axelrod in 1985, was hired to serve as the campaign?s media consultants.? In January, senior Obama aide Larry Grisolano joined forces with AKPD partners John Kupper and John Del Cecato.? David Plouffe, who managed the Obama campaign, remains at AKPD as senior advisor.

Thanks to Hallett’s lazy journalism, Lee Fisher almost scored a two-fer: first citing David Plouffe’s tie to his campaign staff as a sign of his strength; then eight months later, cite his endorsement as a sign of his campaign’s strength, too.

Great job, Joe.? Now I know why you hate blogs…because we pay attention.

 
  • Love how he mentions the story was edited.

  • Pingback: Lee Fisher’s Paid Endorsement | Right Ohio()

  • anastasjoy

    For some reason, the Harry Reid fundraiser escaped my attention. That certainly is not a positive or valuable endorsement in the current climate, where Reid has become a huge symbol for timid, reluctant, foot-dragging Democrats who turn their back on a progressive Senate majority that represents the views of an overwhelming majority of Americans in order to cater to a handful of “conservative” Democrats who are serving their lobbyist-masters. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a Reid endorsement was a negative. Right now, many Democrats are seething that they want fewer “Harry Reid” types and are even muttering about primarying them. Any Senate candidate who wants to stir up excitement and foot soldiers next year will probably have to run against Reid.

  • Love how he mentions the story was edited.

  • anastasjoy

    For some reason, the Harry Reid fundraiser escaped my attention. That certainly is not a positive or valuable endorsement in the current climate, where Reid has become a huge symbol for timid, reluctant, foot-dragging Democrats who turn their back on a progressive Senate majority that represents the views of an overwhelming majority of Americans in order to cater to a handful of “conservative” Democrats who are serving their lobbyist-masters. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a Reid endorsement was a negative. Right now, many Democrats are seething that they want fewer “Harry Reid” types and are even muttering about primarying them. Any Senate candidate who wants to stir up excitement and foot soldiers next year will probably have to run against Reid.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!