Blue Spot

MSNBC Takes Incendiary Hosts From Anchor Seat - NYTimes.com

MSNBC tried a bold experiment this year by putting two politically incendiary hosts, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, in the anchor chair to lead the cable news channel’s coverage of the election.

That experiment appears to be over.

After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregory would anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.

The change — which comes in the home stretch of the long election cycle — is a direct result of tensions associated with the channel’s perceived shift to the political left.

“The most disappointing shift is to see the partisan attitude move from prime time into what’s supposed to be straight news programming,” said Davidson Goldin, formerly the editorial director of MSNBC and a co-founder of the reputation management firm DolceGoldin.

Executives at the channel’s parent company, NBC Universal, had high hopes for MSNBC’s coverage of the political conventions. Instead, the coverage frequently descended into on-air squabbles between the anchors, embarrassing some workers at NBC’s news division, and quite possibly alienating viewers. Although MSNBC nearly doubled its total audience compared with the 2004 conventions, its competitive position did not improve, as it remained in last place among the broadcast and cable news networks. In prime time, the channel averaged 2.2 million viewers during the Democratic convention and 1.7 million viewers during the Republican convention.

The success of the Fox News Channel in the past decade along with the growth of political blogs have convinced many media companies that provocative commentary attracts viewers and lures Web browsers more than straight news delivered dispassionately.

“In a rapidly changing media environment, this is the great philosophical debate,” Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, said in a telephone interview Saturday. Fighting the ratings game, he added, “the bottom line is that we’re experiencing incredible success.”

But as the past two weeks have shown, that success has a downside. When the vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin lamented media bias during her speech, attendees of the Republican convention loudly chanted “NBC.”

In interviews, 10 current and former staff members said that long-simmering tensions between MSNBC and NBC reached a boiling point during the conventions. “MSNBC is behaving like a heroin addict,” one senior staff member observed. “They’re living from fix to fix and swearing they’ll go into rehab the next week.”

In January, Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews, the host of “Hardball,” began co-anchoring primary night coverage, drawing an audience that enjoyed the pair’s “SportsCenter”-style show. While some critics argued that the assignment was akin to having the Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly anchor on election night — something that has never happened — MSNBC insisted that Mr. Olbermann knew the difference between news and commentary.

But in the past two weeks, that line has been blurred. On the final night of the Republican convention, after MSNBC televised the party’s video “tribute to the victims of 9/11,” including graphic footage of the World Trade Center attacks, Mr. Olbermann abruptly took off his journalistic hat.

“I’m sorry, it’s necessary to say this,” he began. After saying that the video had exploited the memories of the dead, he directly apologized to viewers who were offended. Then, sounding like a network executive, he said it was “probably not appropriate to be shown.”

Mr. Griffin, MSNBC’s president, denies that it has an ideology. “I think ideology means we think one way, and we don’t,” he said. Rather than label MSNBC’s prime time as left-leaning, he says it has passion and point of view.

But MSNBC is the cable arm of NBC News, the dispassionate news division of NBC Universal. MSNBC, “Today” and “NBC Nightly News” share some staff members, workspace and content. And some critics are claiming they also share a political affiliation.

The McCain campaign has filed letters of complaint to the news division about its coverage and openly tied MSNBC to it. Tension between the network and the campaign hit an apex the day Mr. McCain announced Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. MSNBC had reported Friday morning that Ms. Palin’s plane was enroute to the announcement and she was likely the pick. But McCain campaign officials warned the network off, with one official going so far as to say that all of the candidates on the short list were on their way — which MSNBC then reported.

“The fact that it was reported in real time was very embarrassing,” said a senior MSNBC official. “We were told, ‘No, it’s not Sarah Palin and you don’t know who it is.’ ”

Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams, the past and present anchors of “NBC Nightly News,” have told friends and colleagues that they are finding it tougher and tougher to defend the cable arm of the news division, even while they anchored daytime hours of convention coverage on MSNBC and contributed commentary each evening.

Mr. Williams did not respond to a request for comment and Mr. Brokaw declined to comment. At a panel discussion in Denver, Mr. Brokaw acknowledged that Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews had “gone too far” at times, but emphasized they were “not the only voices” on MSNBC, according to The Washington Post.

Al Hunt, the executive Washington bureau chief of Bloomberg News, said that the entire news division was being singled out by Republicans because of the work of partisans like Mr. Olbermann. “To go and tar the whole news network and Brokaw and Mitchell is grossly unfair,” he said, referring to the NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell.

Some tensions have spilled out on-screen. On the first night in Denver, as the fellow MSNBC host Joe Scarborough talked about the resurgence of the McCain campaign, Mr. Olbermann dismissed it by saying: “Jesus, Joe, why don’t you get a shovel?”

The following night, Mr. Olbermann and his co-anchor for convention coverage, Mr. Matthews, had their own squabble after Mr. Olbermann observed that Mr. Matthews had talked too long.

Some staff members said the tension led to the network’s decision to keep Mr. Olbermann in New York for the Republican convention, after he ran the desk in Denver during the Democratic convention. MSNBC said that he stayed in New York to anchor coverage of Hurricane Gustav. But some workers say there were other reasons — namely, that Mr. Olbermann was concerned about his safety in St. Paul, given the loud crowds at MSNBC’s set in Denver.

NBC Universal executives are also known to be concerned about the perception that MSNBC’s partisan tilt in prime time is bleeding into the rest of the programming day. On a recent Friday afternoon, a graphic labeled “Breaking News” asked: “How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?” Mr. Griffin called the graphic “an embarrassment.”

According to three staff members, Jeff Zucker, chief executive of NBC Universal, and Steve Capus, president of NBC News, considered flying to the Republican convention in Minnesota last week to address the lingering tensions.

It's about freakin' time. Even if you are a liberal, why would you want a network that is not neutral or objective? Do you really want a Fox News Channel for the left? That's not going to help this country.

H/T to Blue Lyon.

Labels: Chris Matthews, Clueless Pundits, Media bias, Olbermann

h/t NewHampster

The thought of Democrats "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" was finally put to rest in 2006. Or so we thought. Lately, the snarky liberals around the blogosphere at such classy sites like Daily Kos, are trying to prove they can still give elections away.

All the latest attacks aimed at McCain's VP pick, Sarah Palin , are just serving to galvanize Republicans and I predict you will soon see many independents rallying around her.

Online communities such as Daily Kos, which was once a place where diversity was tolerated and was packed with thoughtful, objective, likable progressives, have become colonies for lewd, self-absorbed, mean-spirited, narcissists. They have adopted the tactics used by right-wing operatives and advocacy groups.

Everybody was happy to see the CNN show "Crossfire" finally put to rest. What we see online is a cyber version of this show. I realize that I have been part of the problem in the past and i vow to be more balanced in the future. I started doing this for myself, to document the abuses of the Bush administration and his cronies. But this hobby or for many, profession, has evolved into what Dick Meyer (Why We Hate Us: American Discontent in the New Millennium) calls a "permanent campaign."

The recent Democratic nomination process has highlighted some ugly facts about my party. Some will say and use the most vile and juvenile tactics to win. They will even attempt to destroy one of their own to get what they want and their friends in the MSM will co-operate (think Olbermann, Shuster, Matthews, Mitchell, Todd, Roland Martin, Brazille, Cooper). This is incredibly disappointing, and I will not support this.

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Gov. Sarah Palin, Hillary-haters, Internet, Kos, Liberals, Media bias, Netroots, Obama, personal attacks - mudslingling, supporters

MSNBC's meltdown - War Room - Salon.com

Then came perhaps the biggest blowup of the entire week, a nearly 10-minute exchange Tuesday during which Scarborough and David Shuster yelled back and forth. Scarborough concluded the discussion by calling Shuster "Rip Van Shuster" and saying, "Shuster, I have no idea what you're talking about ... Have you been sleeping the past couple months? ... Do you never watch this show? ... You usually sleep through this show because you didn't show up three times in a row ... Somebody got into some bad acid at the protests and this conversation turned terribly wrong."

Not to be outdone, Chris Matthews then got into the act Tuesday. While House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer waited to be interviewed, first Matthews yelled to someone off-camera that he would "wrap in a second." Then, after Olbermann introduced Hoyer, Matthews went after his coanchor, saying, "You made that sound, Keith. I can do the same to you. That's what I thought and I said it."

Finally (at least for now), Wednesday night, after Republican pundit Mike Murphy opined that he believed Hillary Clinton would vote for John McCain, Olbermann said loudly, "Let's wrap him up, all right?"

Add to these incidents MSNBC's horrible decision to position its outdoor set in front of Denver's Union Station, so that both train whistles and screaming protesters frequently interrupt its broadcasts, and you have a television meltdown on your hands. And it comes at an awful time -- right in the middle of one of the network's most important spans of coverage for the entire year.

The Politico and the Wall Street Journal have documented the on-air grudge matches in articles over the past two days. The Politico quotes an anonymous "high-ranking MSNBC journalist" as saying, "The situation at our channel is about to blow up." And the Wall Street Journal quotes former MSNBC host and "CBS Evening News" coanchor Connie Chung, who said, "My reaction to that is: 'Grow up!' They have to just grow up."

Despite all the attention the spats have received in the media, however, MSNBC president Phil Griffin doesn't seem worried. "Look, I want honest, authentic people on our air. I don't want phonies. So if the price of that is every once in a while one of these bubbles up, I'm not concerned," he told the Wall Street Journal. And Griffin told the Politico that "this is our team. They've served us well. We love 'em, and we're going to be at the Republican convention, and it's going to be great. And I don't have any hesitation."

And what about MSNBC's ratings? While it has improved on the ratings front during the convention, it still trails CNN and Fox News overall for convention coverage.

Looks Like Olbermann's arrogance is catching up to him and his co-worker's aren't going to put up with him thinking he's always the smartest person in the room.

And despite Shuster's charges against Scarborough, Joe has been the fairest of the MSNBC bunch. The others can't hide their bias.

Labels: Chris Matthews, Clueless Pundits, Joe Scarborough, Media, Media bias, Olbermann

I'm looking at my Google page and this is about the only story on the page that is not bashing Hillary and actually takes the time to put things in their proper perspective.

I'm looking at a tvr'd "Meet the Press" right now and the Hillary bashing continues with a panel basically dedicating this episode as a "How Hillary Lost" show. There's Maureen Dowd telling us that the calls of sexism by the Hillary side are "poppycock;" Doris Kearns Goodwin ending a thought with "or God forbid what this thought suggested." The only moderate voice seemed to come from Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post who said she "would differ a little bit from some of the people around the table who thought this was intentional."

If you go to the page of the TPM YouTube video, you will see the most hateful, vitriolic, vile comments against Hillary to date. It's so obvious that the Obama side, who is fixated on thrusting the final dagger in the Clinton campaign, is not interested in anything the Clinton supporters have to bring to party. They really feel they can win without us. For me, this weekend is the final straw. I've finally decided that I will not be voting for Obama if he is the nominee. I've been on the fence for quite a while on what to to if he was the nominee, but the Obama side and the media have, just pushed me over. I'm still not sure if I can find myself voting for a Republican but I will either be staying home or writing in Hillary's name if she is not the nominee.

The consequences could be stark if McCain wins. However, in the case Hillary is not the nominee, I think it would be better to lose the presidency than to lend legitimacy to the wing of this party that finds it OK to disenfranchise millions of voters to win, and finds it OK to use a sexist, biased media as a weapon against a fellow Dem. They apparently are OK with swift-boating fellow Dems and the left-wing blogs like Daily Kos, with their juvenile, vile community, is OK with not only lifting their preferred candidate but destroying the opposing Democrat. The left-wing blogoshere, which has spent the last eight years complaining about right-wing tactics, is guilty of behaving in the same manner. For those of you who will no doubt point to NO QUARTER, I say that this is just one site who is just reacting to these tactics and their resentment stems from, to a large degree, the lack of substance from Obama and the vitriolic attacks of his supporters toward Sen. Clinton and her supporters. Most of this is defensive as opposed to what Obama supporters have managed to do, destroy the the original "inevitable" candidate.

I'm not OK with being forced to follow the "it" crowd; a fashion statement. I'd rather lose and pick my battles with McCain than be told to follow a candidate or face "race riots" as Michelle Bernard said on MSNBC on 5/19/08. I'm not OK with being told I'm a racist because I'm not following the "black candidate" after it took months for that community to even consider him black.

I'm not OK with the media choosing our candidate. I'm not OK with Donna Brazile asking me for money on behalf of the party, when she's done her best to promote her candidate with her "undeclared" support, while also, doing her best to "send a message" and make sure Florida voters pay the maximum price for what Florida Republican politicians created.

This party, which started this campaign with an embarrassment of riches, has exposed their sores and is now infected.

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Election 2008, Hillary, Hillary-haters, McCain, Media bias, Obama, Obama supporters, sexism

Media hype: How small stories become big news - John F. Harris - Politico.com

The signature defect of modern political journalism is that it has shredded the ideal of proportionality.

Important stories, sometimes the product of months of serious reporting, that in an earlier era would have captured the attention of the entire political-media community and even redirected the course of a presidential campaign, these days can disappear with barely a whisper.

Trivial stories—the kind that are tailor-made for forwarding to your brother-in-law or college roommate with a wisecracking note at the top—can dominate the campaign narrative for days.

Who can guess what stories will cause the media machine to rev up its hype jets?

Actually, I have gotten pretty good at guessing which ones will. So have many of my colleagues and a generation of political operatives.

This weekend’s uproar over Hillary Clinton invoking the assassination of Robert Kennedy as rationale for continuing her presidential campaign is an especially vivid example of modern journalism as hyperkinetic child—overstimulated by speed and hunger for a head-turning angle that will draw an audience.

The truth about what Clinton said—and any fair-minded appraisal of what she meant—was entirely beside the point.

Her comment was news by any standard. But it was only big news when wrested from context and set aflame by a news media more concerned with being interesting and provocative than in being relevant or serious. Thus, the story made the front page of the New York Times, was the lead story of the Washington Post, and got prominent treatment on the evening news on ABC, CBS, and NBC.

It would be a big story if Clinton said something like this: “Hey, I know it looks bad for me now. But, think about it. Obama could get shot and I’d get to be the nominee after all.”

It is a small story if Clinton said something like this: “Everyone talks like May is incredibly late, but by historical standards it is not. Think of all the famous milestones in presidential races that have taken place during June.”

It seems pretty obvious that the latter is what Clinton meant, and not too far from what she actually said. It was not surprising that the Argus Leader’s executive editor, Randall Beck, put out a statement saying, “Her reference to Mr. Kennedy’s assassination appeared to focus on the time line of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself.”

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Election 2008, Hillary, Hillary-haters, Media, Media bias, Obama supporters

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Clinton takes on TV pundits at distillery stop in Kentucky « - Blogs from CNN.com

LORETTO, Kentucky (CNN) — Wrapping up a rally at the Maker's Mark bourbon distillery on Saturday, Hillary Clinton again argued that she leads Barack Obama in the popular vote and attacked the television "punditry" that has suggested the race is over.

"All those people on TV who are telling you and everybody else that this race is over and I should just be graceful and say, 'Oh it's over' even though I've won more votes - those are all people who have a job," Clinton told supporters picnicking in the gardens of the distillery.

"Those are all people who have health care. Those are all people who can afford to send their kids to college. Those are all people who can pay whatever is charged at the gas pump. They're not the people I'm running to be a champion for."

"They keep telling me to quit," said Clinton. "I don't know, maybe I was just raised with the kind of values you were raised [with]. You don't quit on people and you don't quit until you finish what you started and you don't quit on America."

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Election 2008, Hillary

Clinton Ad Casts Pundits As Out of Touch - From The Road

LOS ANGELES -- Hillary Clinton released a new ad in Oregon today that casts political pundits as out of touch with what voters in that state care about.

The ad, entitled “What’s Right,” suggests that voters should ignore “pundits in Washington” and shows video of ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Tim Russert.

“In Washington, they talk about who's up and who's down,” the ad’s announcer says. “In Oregon, we care about what's right and what's wrong.”

The ad goes on to list Clinton’s proposals to end No Child Left Behind, create a universal healthcare system, and says she opposed a Bush energy bill to control liquefied gas sites on Oregon’s coast.

The ad highlights a frustration the Clinton campaign is suffering from as they try to continue to gain support through the six primaries running up to June 3rd – the date through which she has vowed to stay in the race. The Clinton campaign has become increasingly aggravated with members of the media who deduce that she has little chance of regaining her lead in the delegate count and pulling ahead of Senator Obama.

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Election 2008, Hillary, Media bias

I can't remember a time I ever agreed with Cokie Roberts, but this week on "This Week" she actually made some sense. Here she is blasting the media for the "blantant sexism" they have shown throughout their coverage of the election.

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Election 2008, Hillary, Media bias, sexism

The Campaign Spot on National Review Online
So now that Obama sees the finish line, the media is lining up right behind him trying to push him forward. As if winning the nomination will automatically get him in the White House. Why even bother with a general election in November? The media has already determined the winner.

...you would think their readers might deserve to know what prompted McCain's campaign to suggest that Obama is the candidate of Hamas, i.e., top Hamas
political adviser Ahmed Yousef saying the terrorist group supports Obama’s
foreign-policy vision and hopes he wins:

“We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not
with domination and arrogance,” Yousef said in response to a question about the group’s willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidates.

I mean, seriously, one of his advisers, Rob Malley, was holding meetings with Hamas, and Obama's promised to hold unconditional face-to-face presidential summits with
the guy who's funding and encouraging Hamas.

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Election 2008, Media bias, Obama, Terrorism

Dana Milbank - What Part of 'In It to Win It' Doesn't America Understand? - washingtonpost.com

SHEPHERDSTOWN, W.Va. They say it's all over but the shouting. Fortunately, Hillary Clinton does that part very well.

"West Virginia is one of those so-called swing states Democrats need to win in the fall!" she told a rally at the old City Hall here, the day after her loss in North Carolina and her narrow win in Indiana all but sealed the Democratic nomination for Barack Obama.

"I want to start by winning it in the spring to lay the groundwork for a victory in November!" said the woman whose candidacy has been pronounced dead by George Stephanopoulos and Tim Russert.

"I hope next Tuesday you will give me a chance to be your president!" announced the person who lent her campaign $6 million to keep it afloat.

Cheers rose from the audience of several hundred on the lawn and in the street, but even some of the faithful said they could read the writing on their cable news screens. "It's pretty obvious," said Ken Martin, waving Clinton posters and wearing paint-speckled overalls. "She fought a good fight."

The surroundings were appropriate. For this, her bid to demonstrate her resilience in the next primary state, she chose a landmark identified with the severely wounded. Shepherd University's McMurran Hall was under construction as Shepherdstown's town hall in 1862 when the Battle of Antietam flooded the city with wounded; with no place to go, the maimed used the unfinished building as a hospital.

There were signs, too, of disarray. Security was minimal (the event had been scheduled as a solo appearance for Chelsea), Obama posters were prominent in the crowd, and the sound system, operated in part by a man wearing an Obama T-shirt, had problems. A camera riser collapsed, sending bodies, coffee and cameras flying -- and providing the press corps with a fresh metaphor.

When Clinton gave her victory speech in Indiana on Tuesday night, there was still a chance that she had scored a solid victory in that state, thereby keeping her candidacy viable. But in the wee hours, her win shriveled to a near-draw, and Clinton aides awoke to brutal judgments about her prospects.

"This nomination fight is over," said Bill Clinton aide-cum-ABC newsman George Stephanopoulos.

"We now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be," submitted NBC's Tim Russert.

"Stick a Fork in Her -- She's Done," recommended the New York Post.

And Matt Drudge celebrated with a headline announcing: "Hillary having trouble finding superdelegates who will meet with her . . . 'No one wants to see her today.' "

But Clinton's advisers fought back with a morning conference call. "Another beautiful day in downtown Arlington!" began Howard Wolfson, from Clinton headquarters. How about all the obituaries? "Thankfully for us, the punditocracy does not control this nominating process," he answered. Any talk about dropping out? "No. No discussions" was the entirety of Wolfson's response.

In the crowd here in Shepherdstown, a few of the Clinton fans wanted to believe. "I think she can pull it off -- she can still do it," said volunteer Dan Frost, carrying a clipboard and trying to sign up supporters. His total: five. Nearby, an opportunistic Obama canvasser carried her own clipboard.

Though the Obama campaign, officially, was practicing good sportsmanship, it had no control over supporter Carol Dunleavy, who waved an Obama sign at the Clinton event. "We got it locked up after last night," she said. "She should drop out. She should do it graciously. She should do it soon."

When the famously tardy candidate arrived half an hour late, she was greeted by cheers mixed with some heckling from people waving Obama placards. "Down with the monarchy!" shouted one.

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Election 2008, Hillary

It's startling how biased the CNN coverage has been tonight. I know this is nothing new, but tonight CNN has been especially disgusting. It's like watching a panel of juvenile DKos bloggers. From Anderson Cooper ridiculing Lanny Davis to Jamaal Simmons joking about Florida and Michigan, to Toobin's snarky attacks, even questioning whether Hillary actually raised $10 million after the PA victory. Clinton support was limited to Begala and Lanny Davis, who both got limited time to speak.

I think it's time we force CNN to label Brazille and Martin as Obama supporters. Even Campbell Brown called Brazille out tonight for her obvious bias. Here's an interesting and testy exchange between Begala, an admitted Clinton supporter, and closet Obama supporter, Donna Brazille. Begala took exception to Brazille's continual defense of Obama and her insinuation that Obama is more able to bring people together, thus ignoring Clinton's coalitions.

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Election 2008, Media, Media bias

Is there anybody on TV right now, more biased toward Obama than Rachel Maddow? Now, I know Keith Olbermann is Obama's biggest mouth piece, but Maddow's reaction toward negative Obama stories is so visceral and over the top, it makes you wonder if she's a pundit or an Obama campaign operative.

Here's an exchange from yesterday's "Race For The White House":

SHUSTER: Rachel Maddow, Jay Carney says he wasn‘t angry enough. I thought he was exceptionally angry, especially when he talked about how Reverend Wright has taken up three or four consecutive days in the middle of this major debate. Was he not angry enough for you.

MADDOW: I thought he seemed angry. As I said before, so far Barack Obama has said—and I‘ve made notes of it as he‘s done it—he vehemently disagrees with him. He strongly condemns him. He categorically denounces him. He rejects him outright. Today we got that he‘s appalled by him, that he‘s outraged by him.

I find it incredible that we‘re all sitting here going, why won‘t the Jeremiah Wright controversy go away. You know what, today, John McCain unveiled his health care plan. We got three different statements, three different policies on gas prices. We got the president of the United States making a huge economic speech and speaking to reporters for 40 minutes. We have got four U.S. soldiers who are announced to have been killed in Iraq yesterday.

What else has to happen in the news to push Jeremiah Wright out of the headlines before we do it for six straight headlines on every politics show in the country? This is all we‘re capable of talking about.

I've never seen her have this kind of reaction when the negative stories were about Hillary. She's actually counting the news cycles here. Unbelievable!

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Election 2008, Media, Obama, Obama supporters

Lou Dobbs, one of the few making at least a little sense in recent days, makes the point that although Clinton had a big victory, many are still calling for her to leave the race, or say she can't win.

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Election 2008, Hillary, Lou Dobbs, Media

Now on to Indiana! Make sure to make a donation tonight. I know you can spare $5. The clueless pundits are relentless with their negative, anti-Hillary bias. I just flipped on MSNBC for a couple of minutes, only to see the tag-team of Eugene Robinson and Rachel Maddow whine about the recent Clinton ad. Robinson looked depressed while Maddow was just down right angry, even suggesting that "the super-delagates will have to be pushed" to make a decision. Of course, the bias is not limited to MSNBC as the rest of the networks are yapping about Hillary being "bankrupt." I've heard this on three different networks. They just refuse to let her have her day. So give up on a couple of packs of cigarettes, take your lunch to work, hitch a ride to work to save on gas money, wait a couple of weeks to see that movie, buy those new shoes next month, do what ever you can to make a small donation in the next couple of weeks.

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Election 2008, Hillary, Pennsylvania

Click on image for a larger view of comments (you may have to click on larger pic to zoom).

There's a scathing article by Carl Bernstein posted at ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/carl-bernstein-what-a-hillary-clinton-presidency-look-like/. My pro-Hillary comment has been in the moseration stage for the last two hours while comments attacking Hillary are going right through. Hmmm...very interesting.

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Election 2008, Hillary, Media

Chris Matthews - Hardball - Profile - New York Times
An interesting take on the behind-the-scenes relationships at MSNBC. Chris is portrayed as the sexist, pompous jerk that we see on the show, with an inflated sense of self-importance. However, the article is well balanced and touches on the rivalries with the other anchors. In particular, it shows the contrasts between him and the other Hillary-hater, Keith Olbermann.

Whenever Chris Matthews says something he likes, which happens a lot, he repeats it often and at volumes suggesting a speaker who feels insufficiently listened to at times. “Tim Russert finally reeled the big marlin into the boat tonight,” Matthews yelled — nine times, on and off the air, after a Democratic debate that Russert moderated with Brian Williams in late February at Cleveland State University. Matthews believed that Russert (the fisherman) had finally succeeded in getting Hillary Clinton (the marlin) to admit that she was wrong to vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution in 2002. “We’ve been trolling for that marlin for what, a year now?” Matthews said to Russert.

Comparing Hillary Rodham Clinton to a big flopping fish will do nothing to stop criticism — from Clinton’s presidential campaign, among others — that Matthews and his network, MSNBC, have treated the former first lady unfairly. But this didn’t keep Matthews from bludgeoning the marlin line to death in the postdebate “spin room.” “Russert caught the marlin; he got the marlin,” Matthews shouted to a school of downcast reporters who had been hanging on every canned word of Clinton’s chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn.

The spin room is a modern political-media marvel whose full-on uselessness is perfectly conveyed by its name, but Matthews appeared in his element. He wore a dreamy smile, walking around, signing autographs. As he went, Matthews seemed compelled to give his “take,” which is how he describes his job each night at 5 and 7, Eastern time, on “Hardball” — “giving my take.”

h/t to SusanUnPC at NO QUARTER.

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Media

h/t to Fleaflicker @ NO QUARTER

This is must-see! Lou Dobbs really nails it and highlights non-partisan evidence of bias against Hillary and Lanny Davis points out the double standard applied to the campaign.

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Election 2008, Hillary, Lou Dobbs, Media

Well it looks like your're hearing it all over the place now. I just heard this garbage on ABC. To Hillary supporters, all I can tell you is that this is just a full-force blitz by Obama supporters to suppress the turnout in PA (thus preventing a blowout) and the rest of the remaining contests. Here's an incredible example of what some groups are trying to do. A group headed by Michael Fisher and calling itself the "afrosphere's" Committee to Unite the Democratic Party has started an online petition calling for Hillary to "concede defeat and support the democratic presidential ticket". Among some of the reasons they list on their web page:

(1) The Democratic Party base has spoken. The delegate count shows that Senator Hillary Clinton cannot win the nomination on the strength of earned delegates, based on the will of the voters.

That's funny considering that Obama can't win on the strength of earned delegates either.

(3) This divisiveness is regrettable because, via the presidential candidacy of Senator Obama, the vast majority of African-Americans stand united with millions of white Americans and Americans of all colors, genders, ethnicities and religious backgrounds, erasing divisions to implement a program of Democratic change.

This is also curious as Hillary also has support across the spectrum including a majority of the Latino population, the Gay community, millions of poor working-class and blue collar voters, as well as people of all religious backgrounds.

(6) Mrs. Clinton must wholeheartedly support the winner of the nomination, who has earned the most delegates, and devote herself honestly and enthusiastically to defeating Republican electoral hopes in 2008, not attacking Democratic politicians and Democratic constituencies.

This is down right hypocritical considering the next reason.

(7) Should the Democratic Party leadership nullify the people's votes by giving Mrs. Clinton the nomination, despite the popular will as represented by earned delegates, we would then call upon African-American voters and all Democratic Party constituencies and supporters to withhold their support from a Hillary Clinton candidacy in November. We have survived eight years under President Bush and, if compelled to do so, we will survive four years under a President McCain. However, we cannot and will NOT survive the nullification of our most hard-won right - our votes.

OK, first of all, tell that to the people of MI and FL. Another thing is...really?!? You would really support McCain by not voting for Hillay? Considering this group says it's part of the "afrosphere", I'm going to assume that MLK Day is important to them as it is to me as well. Why would you then go ahead and support a candidate who opposed the creation of this special day? The man who McCain idolized, Ronald Reagan, also opposed the creation of the holiday. In fact, the holiday was not recognized in McCain's state of Arizona until the year 2000. Would you really vote against a Democrat who has a record of helping African-American causes and vote for a candidate who admits to the mistake above and supported the display of the confederate flag atop the SC Statehouse in 2000 due to political pressure. All I can say is, be careful what you wish for.

The national polls still show the race just about even. For all those people yelling about "the rules", I want to see if they bring up the rules if the momentum shifts and the super-delegates decide to vote for Hillary, which the rules state they can do if they feel she would be a better candidate against McCain. The best way for us to be unified as Dems is to let the process continue and have every state be heard.

I hate sports analogies, since they remind me of Chris Matthews. However, (here it goes) can you imagine everybody calling for the Red Sox to quit in 2000, for the good of baseball, because they were down 3 games? What a series we would have missed.

You can e-mail the editor of the petition, Francis L. Holland, at francislholland@yahoo.com

Labels: African-American issues, Clueless Pundits, Comment, Election 2008, Hillary, Media, MLK

Fareed Zakaria trying to knock some sense into the annoying Cokie Roberts and David Gergen on This Week. How can showing how you will be different from Bush be damaging? Cokie thinks we're still living in 2004.

Labels: Clueless Pundits, Election 2008, Hillary, Obama