We agree with Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama, we support the progressive values they support, and we share their dedication to making this nation better... That's why we're Democrats! :-)
It could not have happened to two more serving sexist, arrogant hypocritical windbags. Chris "Tweety" Matthews and Keith "I wanna be Edward R. Murrow" Olbermann have been dumped!
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.
Chalk this one up as a win for the GOP, who knows how to work the refs and has a huge team behind them to help, including right-wing and Christian broadcasting. This is going to raise the media bias issue, the "liberal media" canard even higher for the public. It's called blowback, which plays into Palin's candidacy and further helps John McCain.
This certainly gives the GOP some talking points for a few days, but all will be forgotten when the next big campaign story comes (perhaps Sarah Palin will give us something to talk about after her first major interview with ABC this week). In the long run, it is better for everyone to keep these two jerks from being promoted as legitimate journalists. We are on the right side of history. We don't a biased journalist like Keith Olbermann to help us. We can win on our merits.
While others on our side of the blogosphere are in despair over this news, this Clintonistas for Obama is wearing a big goofy grin!
During an interview with Fox News today, Howard Wolfson sharply criticized Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann of MSNBarack MSNBC.
His anger was sparked by this exchange between Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann.
KEITH OLBERMANN: Irony upon irony, instead of the commercials designed to destroy Hillary Clinton, [the Republicans] are using Hillary Clinton in commercials designed to destroy the Democratic nominee.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Those are crocodile tears. And you wonder whether an objective person, either rational or post-rational, would be able to appreciate the fact that that's clear politics--nothing wrong with it. But Republicans have no heart in Hillary Clinton's claim to the White House. They villainized her for years. Their commercials, their attitudes are--you go to a Republican hangout, it's all anti-Hillary. That's their point of view. To now hold her up as some victim of some sort of foul play, of unfair politics, is a joke. But the funny thing about it is, they're enjoying it. Fox News, for example, seems to enjoy it. It's no accident, for example, that they hired Howard Wolfson. They use him as some sort of, oh, little toy soldier waiting on the shelf.
OLBERMANN: Tokyo Rose was the thought that came to my mind.
Howard Wolfson was very professional during the course of the campaign and kept his public criticism of MSNBC to a minimum. For example, I'm sure that everybody remembers this psychotic tirade by Keith Olbermann accusing Hillary Clinton and her entire campaign staff of racism:
"We, obviously, vigorously disagree with that characterization, although many of us remain fans of Keith and enjoy watching the show on nights other than last night," said communications director Howard Wolfson.
After enduring more than a year of crap like this...
...and this...
...Howard had enough. Howard, good on you for standing up to those hypocritical windbags.
As for Tweety and the Edward R. Murrow wannabe, I'll let my young friend here do the talking...
It's my fault for going to MSNBC. I don't browse the site like I used to, but when something shows up on my newsfeed, I check it out. Big mistake. The Clinton-deranged political commentariat at MSNBC is now obsessed with this video of Hillary Clinton discussing her role and the possibility of a roll call vote at the convention:
If you haven't seen this clip, watch it before reading the rest of my post. In a post called More Clinton Drama, Mike Murray of MNSBC's First Read political blog, argues that this clip clearly shows that Hillary hasn't gotten over her loss yet.
It now has been exactly two months to the day when Hillary Clinton officially ended her candidacy and endorsed Obama. But even two months -- and it seems longer ago than that, doesn't it? -- can’t erase the Clinton drama, even as polls show that women and Clinton’s supporters are firmly behind the Illinois Democrat. First came the Bill Clinton interview in which he wouldn’t say that Obama is qualified to be president beyond the requirements set in the Constitution that you have to be 35 or older and born in the US. And now -- right before she stumps for Obama tomorrow in Nevada -- comes a YouTube clip of Hillary telling her supporters that she wants a “strategy” to have her delegates heard at the convention. (After talking to a Dem operative, Clinton must approve, in writing, for her name to appear on the ballot.
So this is in Clinton's power whether her name is put into nomination, not Obama's nor Howard Dean's.) Watching the video clip, you can tell that Hillary still hasn’t gotten over losing, and given all of the people she had telling her that she’d be the next president, we can understand the denial; she had been preparing for this moment for nearly four years. But we've asked this question a million times and we ask it again: Would the Clintons have been as deferential (or be expected to be as deferential) to Obama if the roles were reversed? What has happened over the last few days has given Obama the high ground here.
Hillary's only remaining bargaining chip with the Obama campaign and the DNC is her right to a roll call vote at the convention. That's it. If she wants to wield any influence over the platform or the convention at all, she needs to keep that card in her pocket. That's smart politics.
Hillary has endorsed the presumptive nominee. She's asked her supporters to donate to his campaign and vote for him. She's publicly said that her supporters who do not support the nominee are making a mistake. And if that's not enough, the Clinton and Obama campaigns yesterday released this joint statement on the convention:
"We are working together to make sure the fall campaign and the convention are a success," said a joint statement released late Wednesday by the Clinton and Obama campaigns. "At the Democratic Convention, we will ensure that the voices of everyone who participated in this historic process are respected and our party will be fully unified heading into the November election."
Hillary Clinton is not the problem. The problem is the media who are jumping on any tiny morsel of evidence of party disunity. Given that two months have passed since Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign and endorsed Senator Obama, it is sad that Clinton Derangement Syndrome continues to permeate MSNBarack's coverage of Bill and Hillary Clinton. It's beginning to remind me of the Republicans continuing to bash the Clintons long after they left the White House..
Mike Murray, MSNBarack, here's some advice from a die-hard Clintonista who has had trouble getting over the primaries: It's time to let go of the primaries. It's over. You won. Your guy is the nominee. It's time to get over the Clintons.
Did you all catch this in today's LA Times? If not, check it out. We actually find some real analysis of that old myth of the "liberal media" and the new rumors of a "media love affair with Barack Obama".
Here, take a look:
The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.
You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.
During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.
Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.
So I guess all the chatter about "liberal media bias" and "media love for Obama" is simply WRONG. Not only are they being hard on him, they're being harder on him than they are John McCain! Surprised? You shouldn't be.
I said this during the primaries when Hillary Clinton got the short end of the media stick, and I'll say it again now. The corporate media bosses aren't all that into "the liberal agenda". The only agenda they have is one to expand their profits.
And while the right-wing is in decline, they still exert plenty of control on the corpoate media. That's why we see them trying to "balance" any postitive news on Obama with negative news, even if there really isn't much negative news to report. And of course, we see how the media is still propping up the facade of "McCain the Moderate Maverick"... Even though McCain's agenda isn't all that different from George W. Bush's.
So what can we do about this real imbalance in media coverage of the election? Well, we can let folks know about the real facts on media bias like this analysis piece in today's LA Times. And of course, we can always refute the distortions with the real facts.
1. No attacks on posters or other commenters. 2. No thread hijacking is allowed. 3. Foul language is permitted, but language that is demeaning of one's race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity is NOT.
The administrators reserve the right to moderate and/or delete any comments that violate the Terms of Use.
Comments, suggestions, or complaints may be sent to c4oblog@yahoo.com
Posts
