Today, Tweety (NBC's Hardball host Chris Matthews) brings up Bill Clinton's 1990 promise to not run for President in 1992. To Tweety this proves what untrustworthy people the Clintons are. Of course, Tweety is oblivious that, unlike Hillary Clinton who made no such statement, Obama also said he would not run for President:

Russert: When we talked back in November of ‘04 after your election, I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?”

Obama: Absolutely. I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.

Russert: So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

Obama: I will not.

I do not write this to criticize Obama. Pols do this type of stuff all the time. I write this to criticize the brazen and shameless hypocrisy of Tweety and NBC. Their hatred of the Clintons deranges them.

By Big Tent Democrat

Greg Sargent reports (a report marred by some nonsense which I will discuss below) that Keith Olbermann expressed regret for his unfortunate remarks:

This line drew some very sharp criticism from The Huffington Post's Rachel Sklar, who noted acidly that Olberman could "only mean one thing: Beating the crap out of Hillary Clinton, to the point where she is physically incapable of of getting up and walking out."

Which prompted Olbermann to send Sklar an apology:

It is a metaphor. I apologize: the generic "he" gender could imply something untoward. It should've been "only the other comes out -- from a political point of view." You could've called for reaction first if your main motive had merely been criticism.

Here is my question - shouldn't the apology be directed to Hillary Clinton, not Rachel Sklar? More . . .

If the Obama campaign is behind Rep. Jim Clyburn's boneheaded attacks on the Clinton camp, they are making a big mistake. Sending Clyburn on to Olbermann tonight (when Rev. Wright will be on Bill Moyers, Wright will be making speeches the next two days as well) to make racially inflammatory and ridiculous charges is just plain dumb. Craig Crawford writes:

Once again, a racial dispute over Bill Clinton’s words erupts in advance of a Deep South primary where African-American voters are crucial. And once again, Rep. James E. Clyburn, D-S.C., is at the forefront of attacks against his party’s former president. . . . Clyburn is leveraging his status as the highest-ranking black leader in Congress to stir the pot in advance of North Carolina’s May 6 primary. . . . The danger for Obama is that another racial meltdown in the Democratic Party could add to his already complicated efforts in appealing to some white voters.

Complicated indeed, especially after Clyburn throws the dynamite. This is a terrible mistake. On Olbermann, Clyburn tried to walk it back. Too late. Damage done. If the Clintons were REALLY willing to do anything, they would go after Clyburn for this.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

(Comments now closed.)

Keith Olbermann's latest: A discussion with Howard Fineman about the need for a superdelegate to "take [Clinton] into a room and only he comes out."/p>

Bloggers say he called for Hillary's murder. Here's a different take by RiverDaughter at Confluence:

Ok, so I interpret your statement to mean that you would like a superdelegate to take Hillary Clinton into a room and somehow intimidate her, you don’t specify how, to drop out of the race and that at the end of this process, only one of them, preferably the superdelegate, would emerge.

Hyperbole? A figure of speech? Sexist? Or a call to snuff her out?

Clinton pollster Geoff Garin asks some fair questions:

So let me get this straight. On the one hand, it's perfectly decent for Obama to argue that only he has the virtue to bring change to Washington and that Clinton lacks the character and the commitment to do so. On the other hand, we are somehow hitting below the belt when we say that Clinton is the candidate best able to withstand the pressures of the presidency and do what's right for the American people, while leaving the decisions about Obama's preparedness to the voters.

Who made up those rules? And who would ever think they are fair?

Indeed. but double standards rule the day. Consider this inane post:

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of the Trinity Church, gives his first interview since becoming a household name to Bill Moyers on PBS tonight.

You can watch a clip and read some details of what he says here.

I was struck by his comments that Barack Obama's race speech was "the politican talking."

Wright said he was hurt by what he considers unfair use of the sound bites, but understood why Obama had harsh words about his statements during a speech on race that the candidate delivered in Philadelphia. Wright said he is obligated to speak as a pastor, but Obama addresses audiences as a politician.

"I don't talk to him about politics," Wright said. "And so he had a political event, he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician.

Fire David Shuster

After being previously suspended for his sexist remarks, it is clear that David Shuster has no remorse. Shakes and Media Matters have the story:

During the April 22 edition of MSNBC Live, guest host David Shuster said to senior campaign correspondent Tucker Carlson: "Before we get to predictions, Tucker, I want to present you ... It's a pen. It's 'Jabber Jaw Pens.' And when you listen to it here." At this point, Shuster pressed the top of the pen -- a likeness of Sen. Hillary Clinton's head -- and the mouth began to move as the pen began audibly laughing. After the pen stopped, Shuster continued: "[I]n honor of being on the air with you for the first time in a little while, I present to you with a Hillary laughing pen." In response, Carlson stated: "I can't tell you, David, how much I appreciate this, how much I appreciate your going through Chris' mail while he's gone and how much I'm really going to miss that cackle. I hope it goes on forever. It's brought light to my life." Carlson also pressed the pen.

Shuster then said: "As we -- to the refrain of Hillary cackling, let's start with predictions tonight. What's going to happen?"

How could NBC possibly think this outrageous sexism could be acceptable? Fire David Shuster. NOW.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

TINS:

They just don't get it. . . . [T]here's a big problem with the whole "electability" argument, anyway. Let's . . . say that Hillary is a sure thing, while Obama would likely lose. . . .

I. Wouldn't. Care. Anyway. And neither should you.

I. Do. Care. Anyway. And so should you.

It so happens that I think Obama is more electable than Clinton. But I must say there is really something wrong with the argument that I should not care that, for just one example, John Paul Stevens has just turned 88. I can not fathom how any progressive could write what TINS wrote. I really can't.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me.

Remember this?

Now whatsay the Netroots?

Barack Obama is going where his campaign has never gone before: Fox News, where he'll be interviewed by Chris Wallace this weekend on Fox News Sunday.

For the record, I support the boycott of Fox News. I think Hillary Clinton was placed in a terrible position because of the extreme bias of NBC and the unwillingness of the Left blogs to criticize the anti-Hillary bias in the Media.

I also understand why Obama is dissing the Netroots now. They will never criticize him anyway. Why should he pander to them then?

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me

For this post, I am going to pretend that NBC's Keith Olbermann (and the normally fair and astute Chuck Todd) are hardworking journalists who are just misguided. I am going to offer a measured critique of what I think was wrong with their news reporting last night. Join me on the flip.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me

As a Brown grad, I must denounce and reject this:

Seriously. I know it is funny to see The Moustache get pied, but it is just wrong. h/t Ezra Klein.

By Big Tent Democrat

Barack Obama is the #1 Media Darling right now. Credit to him and if he is the nominee, let's pray he stays the #1 Media Darling. But, as Kevin Drum and Bob Somerby show, the Dean's Endless Love has not diminished:

David Broder says John McCain "is the rare exception who is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest." Bob Somerby is pissed:

The Dean doesn't tell us who assumes this — nor does he say if their assumption is warranted. And this is odd, because let's be frank: John McCain basically lied through his teeth all through his last run for the White House. . . .

The Media's love for McCain will not wane. Right now, it's love for Obama is stronger. As I have written, Hillary Clinton will always be the target of the Media's attacks (cheered on by the Left blogs now, would that continue if she were the Dem nominee? Even the VP nominee?) no matter what. It is why Obama is more electable.

(By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.)