home

No More Drudgico!

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:52:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Mostly what Atrios said:

I've thought a lot about what Boehlert had to say about concerns about liberal bloggers channeling Drudgico type horsesh[*]t about Hillary Clinton. I think his basic point is important and correct, but he's wrong to make it an Obama/Clinton thing. One can certainly find pro-Clinton bloggers and commenters who do similar. Personally, I've tried to call media bullsh*t on both sides when I see it and as much us possible live by my basic rule of not reinforcing right wing narratives against Democrats. But I don't claim to be perfect or imagine that I always succeed at what I intend to do along those lines.

What Atrios glosses over is NBC. Because MSNBC has been the cable network that has been most fair to Dems generally for the past few years, Left blogs have given it a pass on its blatant sexist and misogynistic anti-Hillary bias. Most will not tell the truth about Keith Olbermann especially - he has become a bad joke. Most will not say that. And that is what Boehlert is talking about.

< DNCC Blogger Logistics Conference Call | Howard Dean: Only 2 Ways Fl and MI Will Be Seated >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    No More Drudgico! | 181 comments (181 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Hear, hear! (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:55:38 PM EST


    MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Kensdad on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:12:48 PM EST
    has so pissed me off that i refuse to watch most of their programming.

    joe scarborough (of all people) can be even-handed.  dan abrams is o.k.  and i've been occasionally watching the new david gregory show, but i haven't made up my mind on that one yet.

    the minute chris matthews or KO show their ugly mugs on any of the above programs i immediately change the channel...  and i've pretty much stopped watching their news coverage as well though pat buchanan (of all people) can be even-handed...  gee, is anyone noticing a pattern?  the republicans are fair to hillary!  now that's ironic...  especially with what rendell said about fox news (but i'll have to take his word for it since i stopped watching them yrs ago...

    these days i'm pretty much stuck with CNN which has its ups and downs.

    what a sorry state of journalism!

    Olberman Is A Hack (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:15:46 PM EST
    There are striking similarities between Barak Obama, the apple of Keith Olberman's eye, and Olberman himself.  Obama carries his self with such an air of invincibility that I half expected to see him light up a Lucky Strike during one of the station breaks of the last debate, just to prove that nothing can touch him.  Olberman has become so convinced that he himself is the darling of the media, as well as the arbiter of truth, that he no longer has to maintain journalistic integrity and objectivity.  In what have become the most disgraceful exhibits of bias and news spin, Olberman transformed from quality newsman to gushing political hack and Cheerleader in Chief for Obama's candidacy.  He devotes the first quarter-hour of each of his "newscasts" to spinning every comment from Clinton's campaign, no matter how insignificant or minute the comment may be, into a falsely perceived obfuscation that exists only in his vindictive mind, while simultaneously exculpating Obama from every criticism.  How can this man continue to call himself a newsman?

    I used to be a big fan of "Countdown" back when the Olberman would take on the right-wing thugs and liars.  Now, Olberman himself is a contestant in the race to the bottom.  I guess there are enough Hillary haters left to keep his program afloat, but he will never be the same courageous truth teller that he once was, in my eyes.

    My feelings exactly on KO (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Kensdad on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:53:42 PM EST
    i couldn't agree with you more about having liked olbermann when he stuck to exposing the real thugs...  i'll never watch him again regardless of how this election turns out.  same with "hardball"...  i used to watch both daily.

    [ Parent ]
    I have largely stopped watching (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Dave B on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:53:52 PM EST
    Regarding Olbermann, I am so dissappointed.  The impression I get is that he believes that he owes his recent success to Daily Kos readers, and he is pandering to them.  If you watch DK, and then turn on Olbermann, it is obvious that he's taking all his cues from the site.  I'm convinced that he's doing his research there and parroting what they say on his show.

    He's lost me, and he'll sadly never have a chance of winning me back.  Rather than fairness to Democrats, he had decided to peg his future on the Obama/Kos segment of the Democratic party.  Maybe he's right, but it seems to me that honesty is more important than ratings.  I hope that I've misjudged him.

    [ Parent ]

    He's gone... (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by DudeE on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:58:59 PM EST
    ...into the Dennis Miller column.  A guy who used to be entertaining but, somewhere along the line, became so ideological and mean-spirited that he just got a bit scary...

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah what the hell happend to Dennis Miller (none / 0) (#164)
    by voterin2008 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:19:34 AM EST
    I used to love him and now my opinion is that he souled out.  Really disappointing!

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sorry, but I just think this an overreaction. (none / 0) (#65)
    by demps on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:58:32 PM EST
    Would you be satisfied if he directed his vitriol towards Obama? That would be as detrimental.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it was clear... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by DudeE on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:03:47 PM EST
    ...when poster mentioned 'rather than be fair to Democrats...'

    What you're doing is called 'begging the question'

    [ Parent ]

    Fair enough, I guess my point is that this idea (none / 0) (#74)
    by demps on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:06:44 PM EST
    of equity is determined by our own biases. If we are pro-clinton, our sense of fairness differs greatly from the same if we are pro-obama. I favor obama, but in the GE I am voting democrat irregardless of who emerges

    [ Parent ]
    Seems pretty objective... (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by DudeE on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:11:36 PM EST
    ...by any standard that Olbermann has focused the vast majority of his energy into attacking Clinton.  When he does a 20 minute "Special Comment" attacking Clinton for someone else's statement (Ferraro), it's pretty tough to argue he isn't showing bias.

    [ Parent ]
    I would also be offended (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Dave B on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:23:12 PM EST
    If he went on 20 minute tirade against Obama, with anger intense enough to make his lower lip quiver, yes I would also be offended.  The special comment was what pushed me over the edge.  I had started watching Olbermann back when he first appeared on the scene.  I had high hopes for him, but alas, all hope is lost.

    I was originally an Edwards supporter.  When he dropped out I was having a difficult time trying to decide which way to go.  First it was health care that swayed me toward Clinton.  I recently lost my 49 year old brother who essentially died because of a lack of health insurance.  Then Obama playing the race card sealed the deal.

    [ Parent ]

    yeah, on that I completely agree, Olbermann (none / 0) (#85)
    by demps on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:15:23 PM EST
    is not objective as far as it regards the democratic contest. Is there someone out there in the MSM who you do consider objective? It seems everyone is entrenched on one side or the other

    [ Parent ]
    Onus is on you; Find a pro-HRC shill as bad (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:35:02 PM EST
    ... as Obamann is in the tank for Obama.

    Wandering through the thread asking people to do your homework doesn't constitute an argument. It merely fogs the environment.

    Obamann, and NBC generally, are in the tank for Obama. It's baldly evident. The anti HRC bias is baldly evident.

    It doesn't "logically" follow that, like, So?, other networks are prolly for HRC and could you, like, show me.

    Please.

    [ Parent ]

    I was genuinely inquiring. I was not arguing. (none / 0) (#134)
    by demps on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:22:12 PM EST
    relax

    [ Parent ]
    I find... (none / 0) (#91)
    by DudeE on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:21:28 PM EST
    ...Stephanopoulos generally avoids any overt bias.  Likewise, Tom Brokaw.  They're out there.  Tweety tends to host the usual suspects - Andrea Mitchell, the editorial lady from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, etc.  All he has to do is say "Clinton" and his entire panel is rolling their eyes...

    [ Parent ]
    I saw (none / 0) (#155)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:23:16 AM EST
    Brian Williams on Letterman a few nights ago and had to leave the room before I threw something through the screen.  He had barely sat down when he launched into a diatribe demanding that Hillary quit the race.  He repeated Obama talking points like a stuck record. I didn't see the rest of his segment the first couple of minutes was too much.

    I can't imagine Walter Cronkite doing anything like that.

    Network news anchors once had a certain dignity, they were seldom seen in an entertainment venue.

    We've succeeded in cheapening everything.

    [ Parent ]

    Who other than Joe Scarborough and (none / 0) (#98)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:25:42 PM EST
    ..other Republicans are particularly fair or biased towards Hillary Clinton. I'm just asking cause I've missed them.

    [ Parent ]
    Oddly Enough (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by nell on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:41:31 PM EST
    Pat Buchanan...who bitterly declared in 1992 that Hillary was a radical feminist and would probably run for President herself someday...

    Pat said right after Iowa that his mom and sister were horrified by the way Hillary was being treated by the press and he has been fair to ever since. He criticizes her when she deserves it, but he is fair, and calls both Obama and the press out on their bullshit.

    [ Parent ]

    When Pat Buchanan has (none / 0) (#144)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:38:15 PM EST
    no dog in the fight, he's a damn shrewd observer.  He's an odd duck, for sure, with some absolutely vomit-inducing beliefs, but he mostly keeps those under wraps when he's on the teevee.

    [ Parent ]
    I would prefer...personally... (none / 0) (#153)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:35:54 AM EST
    that his show cover the news and information without  engaging in spin doctoring himself.

    He is not a campaign operative. That's not his job.
    "Wit has truth in it; wisecracking is simply calisthenics with words." Dorothy Parker
    [ Parent ]

    nope you are right (none / 0) (#183)
    by coigue on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:47:03 PM EST
    there is an exact synergy.

    I've watched quite a few times where a story popped up on dKos, then was reported later on KO and nowhere else.

    [ Parent ]

    plus his suits are too shiny. (none / 0) (#182)
    by coigue on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:45:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Pat Buchanan is delusional, check out his website. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by demps on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:17:11 PM EST
    He's charming as long as you don't actually explore his opinions. His notions concerning African American heritage are unhinged.


    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by nell on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:25:01 PM EST
    But he has been fair to both Hillary and Obama in his political commentary...he can have political insight apart from his personal political views. That is what reporters and pundits are SUPPOSED to do!

    [ Parent ]
    I would be hesitant to attribute his compliments (none / 0) (#38)
    by demps on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:36:20 PM EST
    of Hilary to impersonal motives. The man is possessed of true prejudices (once again, visit his website). Simply because he may be less favorably inclined to Obama does not make him objective, that is a poor measure. In the end, who in the media truly is objective? Jim Lehrer, Charlie Rose?


    [ Parent ]
    What he said a couple of weeks ago (none / 0) (#81)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:11:47 PM EST
    rang pretty sincerely.

    He said (on Laughlin... a paraphrase), she has been through some crap, and I respect her for how well she has handled it.

    [ Parent ]

    I've never found him charming... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:31:07 PM EST
    If he says things that I don't disagree with I chalk it up to either ulterior motives or a fluke.

    [ Parent ]
    I am relieved (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:17:56 PM EST
    that at least some others think he is kind of joke too.  I went back and forth during the early primaries, but finally stopped watching about a 6 weeks ago and have not watched it since.  I used to tivo the show and watch it every night. He is pompous, biased, and embarassing to watch.  I guess he has become the "lunatic fringe" for the left IMO.  

    But what about Kos, Open Left, Ezra Klein, (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by dk on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:21:28 PM EST
    etc. etc. (in other words, the "A-list" bloggers.  BTD, you yourself have said that that the depiction of Hillary on much of the left blogosphere is, for the most part at least, absurd.

    Duncan, I'm afraid to say, sounds downright Broderistic here.  I'm not going to sit here and say that there aren't some Clinton bloggers and commenters who play dirty, but when you look at the collective shamefulness of the Obama side, and the sheer numbers of them, you can't realistically equate the effect that the smears have.

    Are we really just talking about NBC?  I don't watch tv news or cable news, but I certainly see a lot of silliness about Hillary on the A-list left blogs.

    I don't watch TV or cable news either, (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:24:31 PM EST
    except on primary/caucus nights for the results.  It is amazing to me how much time is devoted here to repeatedly pointing out how biased certain news outlets are and how everyone has stopped watching them, but really hasn't. No wonder print newspapers are on their last legs.

    [ Parent ]
    Bloggers and MSM (none / 0) (#31)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:33:14 PM EST
    Apples and Oranges, IMO.

    [ Parent ]
    I might have agreed with (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by dk on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:35:08 PM EST
    you a year ago.

    [ Parent ]
    Atrios doesn't have clean hands (none / 0) (#139)
    by Alvord on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:50:52 PM EST
    In his own low key manner, Atrios usually finds a way to interpret a situation to Obama's advantage or to find fault with Hillary Clinton. The fact is Hillary Clinton gets worse treatment from the media, and the blogs, than does Barack Obama. By minimizing this fact Atrios is once again putting his thumb on the scale to favor Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed. (none / 0) (#143)
    by DawnG on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:34:18 PM EST
    I can't help but wonder what the world was like before we went around judging each other on the "Obama or Clinton" scale.  I can barely remember a time before EVERYONE had a bias (even if only one person saw it) and would be scorned and shunned by members of the opposite bias.

    It's been so long...

    I feel like I'm trapped in the Lord of the Flies and I'm just tired of it.

    [ Parent ]

    amen (none / 0) (#148)
    by demps on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:46:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oh hai... (none / 0) (#154)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:41:36 AM EST
    have missed you <hug>.

    Please return to the discussion already in progress.
    "Wit has truth in it; wisecracking is simply calisthenics with words." Dorothy Parker
    [ Parent ]

    Oh my GOD! (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:57:17 PM EST
    How adorable!  How you doing?  I'm branching out.

    [ Parent ]
    Am pretty good... (none / 0) (#184)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:59:54 PM EST
    Have been in the midst of the lots of work...and needed to branch out also.
    "Wit has truth in it; wisecracking is simply calisthenics with words." Dorothy Parker
    [ Parent ]
    "Lord of the Flies" comment is spot on (none / 0) (#169)
    by abfabdem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:08:40 AM EST
    I finally left DKOS due to the high level of vitriol and sexism.  It seemed to me it had become a boys club along the lines of Lord of the Flies!!  How interesting to see someone else come to the same conclusion!

    [ Parent ]
    i also think (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:24:24 PM EST
    atrios misses one of boehlert's points: that the horseguano is disproportionately directed at clinton.

    I agree Turkana (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:35:57 AM EST
    I really don't know why he beggared in that manner unless he's read comments from his own readers and determined a majority (the nastiest) to be Obama backers. I detect a slight Obama slant from him but I may just be over sensitive.

    [ Parent ]
    OT but can anyone speculate about (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by RalphB on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:34:22 PM EST
    what the heck's going on with people at Chelsea Clinton's campaign appearances asking questions about Monica Lewinski?

    Is this some kind of planned BS or are these kids just incredibly rude and sick?  I ask because it's happened at her last two appearances.

    Since Wolf Blitzer had a day off..... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:45:08 PM EST
    The Situation Room went crazy over this today. Carol Costello did a snarky commentary about Chelsea's unwise responses and how it was going to cost her mother votes with the young crowd. Then they had interivews with some college students who were basically Clinton haters and thought Chelsea should answer the questions and also John King and David Broder and Cafferty, of course, weighed in to say that Chelsea basically got what she deserved because she won't talk to the media and she has not right to say "none of your business" because basically her dad's infidelity is our business because it was done in the White House. All this crap all over again.

    They tried to pull this earlier in the week but Wolf kept saying, "I like Chelsea and I think her answer was just fine." So I guess since he was off today, they took the opportunity to get all the Chelsea hate off their chests. She is now a fully grown member of the Clinton family. Poor thing.

    [ Parent ]

    Chelsea seems (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:48:51 PM EST
    amazingly poised, tough, and smart.

    [ Parent ]
    Magnificent young woman in every respect! (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by RalphB on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:55:01 PM EST
    Bill and Hillary raised a wonderful person.

    [ Parent ]
    What Bill Clinton did (none / 0) (#67)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:00:44 PM EST
    in the White House is our business. However that incident effected Sen. Clinton, his wife, is private and has nothing what so ever to do with Sen. Clinton's candidacy. "None of your business" might not be the best response but I give her credit for going out there and campaigning for her mother.
    Maybe she should say, "That question has no relevancy to my other's campaign. Do you have something else you would like to ask?

    [ Parent ]
    I strongly disagree (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by reality based on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:09:56 PM EST
    I am not interested in probing into the sexual activities of the inhabitants of the White House.  To sate my prurient interests, I'll rent a movie or go to a fundamentalist church and listen to the confessions of my fellow sinners.

    [ Parent ]
    And I agree (none / 0) (#96)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:24:16 PM EST
    but until he got caught and lied about it, it was none of our business. It was foolish and embarrassing for everyone. And considering all the illegal activities that have gone on since Bill Clinton left the White House, it was petty. To continue to use the incident as fodder in this election is beneath dignity and those questions should be ignored.

    [ Parent ]
    so it is justified to ask his daughter????? (none / 0) (#70)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:03:48 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No, it is not. N/T (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:06:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Agreed. (none / 0) (#77)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:10:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    uck (none / 0) (#142)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:11:54 PM EST
    As somerby might say, they are rubbing their thighs over the opportunity to talk about this.

    [ Parent ]
    Damn right (none / 0) (#150)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:02:35 AM EST
    As far as I'm concerned, NO ONE under any circumstances, in any context, political or otherwise, should be asked about the sexual behavior or misbehavior of their parents, for God's sake.  It's unspeakable.

    [ Parent ]
    Incredibly rude and sick (none / 0) (#39)
    by goldberry on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:36:27 PM EST
    They are trying to goad her into losing it and they are keeping it fresh in everyone's minds.  She's handling it ok.  Don't worry about her.  This will backfire.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not worried about Chelsea (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by RalphB on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:51:51 PM EST
    she seems to be handling it just fine.  I think "none of your business" is a perfectly reasonable answer but the so-called journalists seem to think she should provide some kind of answer.  What a bunch of cretins.  They continially piss me off further, when I don't think they can be worse!


    [ Parent ]
    Overly enthusiastic Obama (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:38:56 PM EST
    supporters?

    [ Parent ]
    Backfiring... (none / 0) (#83)
    by anniethena on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:12:36 PM EST
    CNN's situation room visited this several times, including Jack Cafferty's first "here's the question" segment.
    The pundits were asking if Chelsea's "none of your business" statements would backfire on Chelsea. While they admitted some sympathy for her getting these questions in the first place, in their opinion she's going to have to answer it at some point.
    I think it's extremely rude for anyone to direct questions to Chelsea about this matter. And I suspect the questioners know it's a low blow too.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd wager at least (none / 0) (#157)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:38:25 AM EST
    some are Obama supporters.

    [ Parent ]
    Whaaa? (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by QuakerInABasement on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:43:10 PM EST
    "Because MSNBC has been the cable network that has been most fair to Dems generally..."

    Whaaaa?

    Doesn't anyone here remember 1999 and 2000 with Williams and Matthews working out their personal issues at Al Gore's expense? Rembember Gennifer Flowers being invited on to roll out insane conspiracy theories about the Clintons? Remember the uncritical reporting of the Swift Boat nonsense? The castration jokes bandied about by Tucker Carlson? The unceasing coverage of Clinton pardon "scandals"? Matthews projection of his own gender issues as he slimes Hillary Clinton?

    If this is "the most fair" network, get used to having a Republican president.

    Primarily the main reason they were fair to Bill (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:46:57 PM EST
    during the impeachment is because of Geraldo Rivera.

    [ Parent ]
    They all work for GE (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by reality based on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:47:01 PM EST
    I don't think we live in the golden age of TV journalism any more.  GE runs MSNBC in its own perceived interest.  Matthews and Russert sold out.  We all know the story of Welch, Russert and the Bush button under his lapel, don't we? GE News realized the center left market was available and they snapped it up with Olbermann.  It became even more important when Bush Republicanism began its decline. They can now use him to try to manipulate the Democrats.  When they can decide who they feel more comfortable with in the general election they'll move the coverage and commentary in that direction. When GE wants they'll rein Joe in. It's not news, it's propaganda. Don't fall for it.

    I watch CBS (none / 0) (#88)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:18:41 PM EST
    and amazingly enough, I think they run pretty fair.

    Not everyone has forgotten what journalism is.


    [ Parent ]

    I guarantee (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:04:17 PM EST
    that those who still think Olbermann is okay because he shills for THEIR candidate will someday find themselves on the wrong side of his opinion and be as peeved at him as I am.

    I'll never watch his show again.

    I can't help but ask... (none / 0) (#146)
    by DawnG on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:43:21 PM EST
    ...do you only think that because he's not shilling for YOUR candidate?  Do you honestly think you'd be as disgusted by him if he was noticably pro-Clinton?

    What's most unfortunate about any bias (real or perceived) is that it's only good when you share that bias and only bad when you don't.

    The truth is that a bias in and of itself is neither good nor bad.  Like anything else in this world, it's what you do with it that matters.

    [ Parent ]

    Bias is always bad. (none / 0) (#160)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:24:10 AM EST
    I don't think I ever said it wasn't.  I only said that people who DEFEND him will someday get burned by him.

    He's a shill.  Someday you won't like what he's shilling.

    [ Parent ]

    That Sounds Nice & Reasonable (none / 0) (#170)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:05:58 AM EST
    The truth is that a bias in and of itself is neither good nor bad.  Like anything else in this world, it's what you do with it that matters.

    So is it all right that many of us don't like what he's done with his bias? Or that many of us don't think that a "news" program should be so blatantly biased?

    I stopped watching Olbermann long before he became a part of the Obama campaign staff.

    Look, I enjoyed a good Bush bashing as much as the next gal, but after it was all done you had to ask yourself what it was. And what it was was one man's opinion. If you respected his opinion then probably you were fine with his rant. I didn't so I wasn't.

    My questions are, other than the fact that he attacked Bush regularly wasn't his show pretty boring? Wasn't it sort of sophomoric? Wasn't it really second rate? If you didn't think so then and don't think so now, fine. I thought so then and wouldn't know about now cause I wouldn't waste my time watching. And as for Cafferty? Don't even get me started on that pin-headed old Pundidiot!

    [ Parent ]

    that is certainly fine. (none / 0) (#179)
    by DawnG on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:09:32 PM EST
    But, it's disingenuous to claim that you dislike someone because of they have a bias, when in fact you probably dislike them because their bias doesn't match yours.

    Olbermann has a rather blatant left-leaning bias.  And that was always okay with most becuase he was bashing republicans.  But now that he's perceived to have an Obama bias, people who are for Clinton don't like him.

    I'm on the fence about him myself.  He has moments of startling brilliance surrounded by silliness and snideness.  It's like there's a part of him that is a principaled journalist in the tradition of Edward R Murrow and there's a part of him that's still a sports caster cracking jokes with a bunch of (at least the political equivilant) jocks.

    I can appreciate him for the brilliant moments.  

    That being said, I don't really watch him becuase he's on when I work.  So all I usually see of him is when someone points out and posts footage of his brilliant moments.

    [ Parent ]

    Atrios Closet Obama Fan (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by pluege on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:10:35 PM EST
    as good as Atrios is, he too has an Obama bias clearly detectable if you read him enough. But admittedly, it takes considerable Atrios reading to detect it - he's subtle, such as the cited post.

    He's allowed to have an opinion. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:21:15 PM EST
    He appears to favor slightly Sen. Obama, but he is allowed to have a favorite. I think he comes off pretty even-handed, especially when compared to other bloggers.

    I don't think it counts as bias unless it skews your reading of facts. If he's hiding it well enough that you have to read a lot of him to detect it, I think that's good. There's no missing the bias of Olbermann. Whole different story there.

    [ Parent ]

    agree, it may be too much to ask impartiality. (none / 0) (#100)
    by demps on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:27:43 PM EST
    However, even as an Obama supporter, and though I typically enjoy Olbermann, he is, as it regards the democratic contest, essentially a spinner for Obama, the equivalent of Lanny Davis for the other side (someone whom I truly detest)

    [ Parent ]
    But Lanny doesn't have his own show (none / 0) (#161)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:25:07 AM EST
    does he?

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah but as a Obama supporter I must say (none / 0) (#165)
    by voterin2008 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:28:05 AM EST
    Lanny is really really good.  If Obama does manage to win I look forward to seeing Lanny debating the other side.  Heck even if Obama doesn't win I look forward to seing Lanny take on the other side.

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed (none / 0) (#133)
    by pluege on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:16:55 PM EST
    "If he's hiding it well enough that you have to read a lot of him to detect it, I think that's good"

    Atrios rocks!

    [ Parent ]

    It's Not Just (none / 0) (#158)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:49:45 AM EST
    skewing facts. It's also what's included and what's excluded.

    Although not a blog, Buzzflash has shown incredible over the hill bias both with their editorials and with the articles they include and exclude and the articles they put in prominent positions on the page.

    They frequently link to Krugman columns but when Krugman writes either critically of Obama or in praise of Hillary, Buzzflash omits a link to his column, like it never existed.  I've been checking over the last couple of weeks.

    [ Parent ]

    Yup. (none / 0) (#92)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:22:32 PM EST
    But we're all adults.  We can respect a diversity of opinions.  But the line is crossed at many other blogs with the insidious, derogatory, name-calling attacks.  

    [ Parent ]
    Olberman Is A Hack (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by BlueDemocrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:24:08 PM EST
    Helo,
    My first post and I'd like to use it to compliment
    flashman for a critique which was well said.

    "He devotes the first quarter-hour of each of his "newscasts" to spinning every comment from Clinton's campaign, no matter how insignificant or minute the comment may be, into a falsely perceived obfuscation that exists only in his vindictive mind, while simultaneously exculpating Obama from every criticism.  How can this man continue to call himself a newsman?"

    He never was a newsman, just a commentator posing as one. An incomparable dick is how I prefer to think of him.
    Anyway, tonight he's 21 minutes in and just getting warmed up on his Hill-bashing.
    They have some kind of evil Simpsons character now
    supposedly as Richard Melon Scaithe supered over a photo of Hill from the Pittsburgh Trib interview.

    This may be the most disgraceful political content that's ever aired on national television in this country.

    Scaiffe is repulsive however, even though your (none / 0) (#101)
    by demps on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:29:36 PM EST
    point on Olbermann may stand

    [ Parent ]
    Honestly (4.66 / 3) (#106)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:34:41 PM EST
    I think the problem is caring what the media thinks about your candidate, period.  Rendell was right - Fox hates both our candidates equally.  ABC is still obsessed with some old bodily fluids, and NBC is obviously, from Matt Lauer in the morning til Olbermann screaming at night, intent on painting Hillary as the shrill harpy you never knew New York elected.  They ALL SUCK.  They get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to say what we say on their unpaid lunch breaks.  Why "grassroots activists" go batcrap crazy over the big media makes no sense to me.  Care about local markets, if you're going to care at all.

    Factoring in the media's current story on your candidate might be practical, but it doesn't sit well or make sense in the long term to me.  Your candidate is closer to the media than you.  I understand why BTD cares about the media darling status but there is certainly need for a media f-u coup.

    We're faced with the conundrum of a candidate who is winning based on the media, and a lot of grassroots support.  Who do you think he's going to sell out first if he hasn't sold out someone already?  

    "Got big big bodies, got great big heads..."

    Screw 'em all.  Esp if your intent is to be some sort of 'progressive.'  McCain shows how fostering media love comes from being duplicitious.  Just what I want to encourage in a candidate!  And now that the blogs have apparently allied themselves with the big media, what are the other alternatives?  Reboot Media 2.0?  Clinton still succeeding is a sign that people don't watch as much cable news at night as you think they do.  Then again, maybe it's a sign that they DO - NH.  I don't know how much of their TV time people are willing to devote to TV news.  Perhaps there is some way we can con the news channels into being so annoying, so untruthful, that they become entirely irrelevant.  

    There is a real need for alternate media.  Perhaps that is why BTD focuses on broken credibility.  It's over for TPM, Kos, OpenLeft...news sources have become feeding troughs, and anyone who comes back to them after all this is going to have the same dumb optimism we do when we listen to sources like NBC.  

    But maybe the blogs were just a media fight anyway.  The amount of loathing that comes from the sources I just listed for the average person, the person that they simply have a hard time measuring, is sickening.  These people, it being a democracy, after all this country, do matter.  They are the deciders.  They don't, and won't care about you, if you keep acting this way.

    The Huffington Post?  What average joe wants to listen to a fake newspaper?  Esp one that is more ridiculous than Olbermann???

    I care (none / 0) (#162)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:25:57 AM EST
    because these people sway opinion.  That's the only reason I care.

    They can think whatever they want.

    [ Parent ]

    One viewer's analysis: (4.00 / 1) (#4)
    by mattt on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:10:26 PM EST
    Olbermann and MSNBC have been favoring the Dem frontrunner, who happens to be Obama.  Clinton is trying to tear down the Dem frontrunner, and therefore they don't like her.

    Matthews does have a unique problem with Hillary, and likely with women in general, and the left blogs have been pretty tough on him for that.

    The Media Matters (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:13:57 PM EST
    on Matthews was probably the last good thing to come out the blogs this election.  The last good discussion on sexism I had on dk, too.  

    [ Parent ]
    The fallacy... (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by DudeE on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:38:04 PM EST
    ...is that there's something inherently wrong with trying to win the nomination.  Of course Clinton is pointing out Obama's shortcomings and, by contrast, her strengths.  Obama does likewise.  I never heard a peep from Olbermann and crew when Clinton had 20 point national poll margins and Obama was taking shots at her.

    Interesting argument, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, when Clinton had a 20 point lead (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by esmense on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:51:41 PM EST
    ...there were lots of "peeps" from the media -- urging Obama to go  after her.

    [ Parent ]
    Taking shots at her? (none / 0) (#89)
    by mattt on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:19:50 PM EST
    When did Obama say that the GOP nominee would make a better president than Clinton?  That's what Hillary said with her line about some mythical "commander in chief test."

    I've heard Obama say several times, both early on and up through the last debate, that Hillary would make a fine president.

    [ Parent ]

    His campaign has been based on calling her (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:31:28 PM EST
    a pathological liar, and worse. Where have you been?

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, his campaign has pushed that meme, yet, and (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by demps on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:33:40 PM EST
    I admit this may be parsing it too much, but he has not, as far as I can recall, said as much himself

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, that's parsing it too much. (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:34:45 PM EST
    WAY too much.

    [ Parent ]
    Since when (none / 0) (#108)
    by mattt on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:34:58 PM EST
    did that disqualify anyone from office?  LOL

    A bit more seriously, I think you're conflating Obama's statements with his supporters'.

    [ Parent ]

    his official campaign speaks for him, and (none / 0) (#111)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:38:25 PM EST
    it's position is that Hillary is a liar, a monster, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    The liar comment or as they would say (none / 0) (#166)
    by voterin2008 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:40:37 AM EST
    inconsistant statement has been prooven more by the Clinton campaign then Obama.  The monster comment was dealt with in the only manner you can when someone makes a statement you don't approve.  Thats not an attack its an emotional supporter who went to far.  This has been a mild campaign both candidates are as guilty as the other and anyone who wants to argue that Obama's attacks have been more vicious that doesn't have a vested interest in Clinton I would love to hear their arguement. If you do have a vested interest we could play tit for tat but I'll just say you win it's a silly game to play and I will not sway you nor will you sway me.  

    I still don't understand why Clinton gets a week of coverage for "misspeaking on bosnia"  I understand the ongoing coverage of Rev Wright but it seems unfair.  In comparison to McCain who "misspoke" several times on Iran being connected to Al Quaida which has a thousand times more impact on issues that are more important.  Clinton is running on experience ok she was in Bosnia, she was meeting with leaders in the world so the experience check, she has got it.  McCain runs on Foreign policy experience he's in a country where a we are in a war based on false intelligence and inaccurate information and what does he do.  Tells us Iran is supporting Al Quaeda call it a "senior moment", "misspeaking" or just a good old fashion lie.  Doesn't this speak to the foundation of his credibility.  Remember this wasn't a one time event he repeated it three times!

    Sorry for the rant,

    [ Parent ]

    You seem... (none / 0) (#113)
    by DudeE on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:40:52 PM EST
    ...to lack any sense of consistent principles in your argumentation.  It's not a disqualifier to call a candidate untruthful but lordy jeebus you need to be run out of town on a rail if you suggest your opponent can't pass the C in C test?

    Wow.

    [ Parent ]

    how about both positions are false? (none / 0) (#129)
    by demps on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:55:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, thank you! (none / 0) (#176)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:21:59 PM EST
    What's so incredibly galling is the Obama campaign's pretense that it is super-virtuous and above politics and all about "unity."  It's not.

    And you might want to ponder what the point is of Obama's claim to the presidency if he's just another politician after all.

    [ Parent ]

    Correction (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by Davidson on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:38:20 PM EST
    Clinton challenged Obama to prove his C-in-C qualifications.  She said both McCain and herself had passed and now it was up to Obama who so far had only pointed to a speech.

    Obama has taken several deeply personal shots at Clinton himself (including his staff wish invoke the most sordid of right-wing attacks on her and her family) and is not above citing Drudge to accuse her of being a damn racist (after he stated that he didn't believe she was behind it) when it was the Free Republic that released that benign photo of him in African garb.

    Being repeatedly and falsely accused of being a racist is one hell of charge and his camp (including Obama himself) have done it with ease.  So forgive me if I'm not as outraged by you when Clinton simply calls him to prove himself and doesn't campaign on his behalf (which apparently provokes disgust amongst some).

    [ Parent ]

    Where have you been? (none / 0) (#112)
    by DudeE on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:39:06 PM EST
    Living in the Obama bubble for the last 6 months?  You really can't be serious:

    "You need a candidate who will tell you the truth"

    "If you start off with half the country not wanting to vote for you, you don't have a lot of margin for error"

    "I don't want Bush-Cheney light"

    [ Parent ]

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#75)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:09:47 PM EST
    there ways of pundits focusing on the campaign without favoring one candidate over the other.

    Sigh. I miss real news and commentary.

    [ Parent ]

    Baloney! (none / 0) (#171)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:10:36 AM EST
    They were attacking her when she was the front-runner. No excuses for the Obama Cable Network formerly known as MSNBC.

    [ Parent ]
    Keith Olbermann (none / 0) (#2)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:00:26 PM EST
    appeared to originally be pro-Hillary.  He was not impressed when Obama won Iowa, and was happy he was vindicated when Hillary won New Hampshire.

    Sometime after New Hampshire, he tilted toward Obama....Bill had taken on a greater role, and then there was South Carolina.

     

    I thnk he originally appreared fair which to (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Teresa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:03:08 PM EST
    Obama supporters means pro-Clinton. I never thought he was for her. Then he just lost it.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not sure I should be proud (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:11:19 PM EST
    But I've never listened/read a single KO Special Comment about Hillary or Obama.  I did catch a few where he went after GWB - and there are oh-so-many reasons to criticize GWB, that I never thought he was being unfair.  But when KO went after Hillary, my first thought was "What has she done to you?  For that matter, what has she done to any of us?.

    That's what struck me as truly off target.  Sure the media has given GWB more slack than any president deserves, but Hillary Clinton?  I remember no deference given to her.  

    Maybe it makes the advertisers happy?  I don't know.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, I am always completely baffled (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by hairspray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:17:31 PM EST
    at where this hatred and contempt comes from.  Especially since now we see that so much of the "Clinton racism" was manufactured by the Obama people.

    [ Parent ]
    I have the same question re Eliz. (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:20:26 PM EST
    Edwards, who is reported by unnamed sources to strongly dislike Hillary Clinton.  Is it the "stood by her man" thing?  

    [ Parent ]
    I have a liberal friend who (none / 0) (#26)
    by hairspray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:27:57 PM EST
    was for Edwards (now Obama) who hates Hillary/Bill because of the Monica thing. "I don't trust them" she says.  She is a smart woman, but there is something there about that infidelity that clouds all reason about how our country improved under BC.  But surely these blow dried guys (who may indeed have been unfaithful somewhere along the line) are not all caught up in that?

    [ Parent ]
    My daughter brought that up to me.... (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:33:46 PM EST
    ...as a reason to not like Hillary...the fact that she stayed with Bill. I asked her what she would think if someday Jennifer Aniston took Brad Pitt back and she said that would be different. LOL.

    [ Parent ]
    Ha. (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:36:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I work with a "smart" woman (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:37:54 PM EST
    who knows way more than me about the stock market, but she's a solid Republican, voting for McCain.  I was rather horrified to learn that her 16 year old daughter is a McCain supporter (my own 18 year old daughter loves Kucinich).  If you're not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart, as the saying goes.

    I feel like a lot of the folks who hate or distrust the Clintons b/c of Monica or Whitewater are either too young to have actually experienced the 90's as adults, or are former Republicans.  And that goes for a lot of Big Bloggers.


    [ Parent ]

    KOS (none / 0) (#159)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:13:16 AM EST
    is a former Republican who supports 'free' trade.  He may not admit to the free trade thing now but I read it in one of his posts a year or two back.

    [ Parent ]
    My solidly Republican friends (none / 0) (#175)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:59:19 AM EST
    have a different attitude about "personal responsibility".  Many have not had hard knocks, nor experience with people who have had them. They cannot conceive that bad circumstances are anything more than bad choices.  Many are of course. But bad choices often come from bad circumstances.  It is system thinking versus linear thinking.

    [ Parent ]
    I find it bizarre... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by DudeE on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:44:29 PM EST
    ...that some portion of the population still hasn't grown up to understand that infidelity is part and parcel of holding political office.  Hell, McCain was having an affair with Cindy while he was still married yet nobody is calling him untrustworthy and he was the one actually having the affair

    [ Parent ]
    try to get anyone talking about this... (none / 0) (#123)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:15:14 PM EST
    His ex-wife won't
    The media won't
    Cindy won't
    Obviously John won't

    [ Parent ]
    I wonder how much (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:21:35 PM EST