home

The Media And Michigan And Florida

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:43:35 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I turned on the TV this morning and came across MSNBC and Mika Brzezinski was playing host. And she has Mike Barnicle, and later Chris Matthews on, and she wants to ask about the impact of Rev. Pfleger. Being Grade A Hillary Haters, they were not bothered by Pfleger's comments about Hillary Clinton and did not want to talk about Pfleger, treating Brzezinski with a disrespect that was simply of a piece with the nasty sexism that MSNBC has generally fostered. A sad but expected episode in a long litany of sexism from MSNBC. They just have embraced their inner pig. And NBC is fine with it. But here is what gets me - they pretended as if they wanted to talk about something actually important - like Michigan and Florida.

This is what burns me up - there is not a NBC newsreader or bloviator - I know for sure Mike Barnicle and Chris Matthews have not - who has taken the time to actually learn the facts about the Florida and Michigan situation. NOT one. Now NBC has one of the sharpest guys around as political director in Chuck Todd. Chuck knows the whole story. I KNOW he does. But either Chuck is not imparting his knowledge on the Michigan and Florida situation to the NBC newsreaders and bloviators or they do not want to hear it. [More...]

Tomorrow, there will be extended coverage in the Media of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee hearing on Michigan and Florida. And not one of them will know what they are talking about (NOTE: It is not just the Media, it is also bloggers like Matt Yglesias who continues his competition with Josh Marshall to become the next David Broder.) They will not know that New Hampshire spurred this crisis by not accepting the DNC primary schedule. They will not know that Rule 11 (the DNC primary schedule rule) was violated by Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. They will not know that Florida was entitled to a "waiver" pursuant to Rule 21 of the DNC rules. They will not know that the DNC Rules did not require candidates to take their names off the MI and FL ballots, that in fact that was an Obama ploy to pander to Iowa and limit Michigan's influence. They will not know that the DNC Rules called for a 50% penalty, not a 100% penalty for violating Rule 11. They will not know that Florida and Michigan wanted to have revotes but were stymied by the Obama camp. And so on. In short, the people who will be covering this event tomorrow for the Media will know NOTHING at all about the actual controversy. But we are supposed to treat them with anything but utter contempt? Sorry, all they will get, from me at least, is contempt. And they probably deserve worse.

Speaking for me only.

< Late Night: Getting Ready for Florida | Pentagon Replaces Omar Khadr Judge Who Chastised Prosecution >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Media And Michigan And Florida | 209 comments (209 topical)
    I plan to erect a plexiglas shield around my TV (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by ruffian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:46:44 AM EST
    Stuff will be thrown at it, that is for sure. They misinform on even uncomplicated situations.  This one is way over their heads.

    But it doesn't have to be. They could learn, (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Teresa on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:50:58 AM EST
    as we have. They aren't all stupid, they just don't care. It's so frustrating. I hope at least one lawyer there will tell it like it is the way BTD has.

    [ Parent ]
    Right. It is not really that complicated (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by ruffian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:01:28 AM EST
    But even if one guy explains it right, the idiot choir chimes in with the idiot chorus.

    I am constantly frustrated by their lack of preparation. They get paid millions to be informed on this stuff, and they can't be bothered. Jon Stewart said it to their face, and it dod no good.  "You are hurting America. Stop hurting America."

    [ Parent ]

    Not paid to Know Anything (none / 0) (#206)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:50:45 AM EST
    "They get paid millions to be informed on this stuff"

    Actually they're not paid to know anything. They are paid massive amounts of money because the networks believe that they are personalities that the public enjoys and will tune in to watch. They believe ratings are boosted if they present interesting, colorful personalities.

    They are, in effect, entertainers. The actual content is of no interest to the network brass, only ratings count. Ratings enlarge the cash flow. When Viacom first acquired CBS they appointed an entertainment person to run the news division.

    In the days when the news division was CBS' jewel in the crown, old, experienced journalists were the on screen personalities.  People like Cronkite, Murrow, etc. were journalists who started at the bottom and worked their way up. Not so in today's world, it's all personality. Experience, meritorious accomplishment are without value.

    After all, look at who the Democrats are about to nominate as a Presidential candidate.


    [ Parent ]

    The MCMers are not going to learn anything which (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by jawbone on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:10:53 AM EST
    might affect their positions and their paychecks.

    There is a narrative their higher ups liked for this primary and for just about any subject pertaining to this primary. Deviation from this narrative carried a risk of no air time. And social ostracization among one's peers. Even in left blogosphere.

    There was a narrative their higher ups liked for the run up (and I use "run" to enhance the speed with which the MCM got on board and tried to drive the rush to war) to the Iraq Invasion. There were occasional demurrals, such as the occasional written statement by Tweety, but, on the whole, the MCM brooked no insubordination.

    Recall the swiftness of the retaliations against Phil Donohue and the former Ace Female War Reporter for NBC, Ashleigh Banfield, when she spoke out against the coverage of the war.

    They don't do objectivity, they don't do nuance (unless in the service of destroying one of their hate objects), and they don't do journalism. Facts? How very silly -- they have work to do!

    [ Parent ]

    I would recommend (none / 0) (#16)
    by ghost2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:13:19 AM EST
    giving your TV set away, but then that would not be an act of kindness to the poor soul who gets it.  

    [ Parent ]
    I can't give it away (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by ruffian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:18:12 AM EST
    How would I watch 'the tudors'?

    But I found the mute button.

    [ Parent ]

    No kidding (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:30:12 AM EST
    I think Anne is toast this week.  Horrible scene of her watching them putting her brother on the chopping block last week.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD (none / 0) (#158)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:21:10 AM EST
    Any suggestions, marching orders or whatever?  

    I will be reading the RBC rules once again on the bus to D.C. this afternoon and have all your posts about MI &/or FL and all the bios of the committee members.

    [ Parent ]

    But they are merely refusing to learn because they (none / 0) (#215)
    by TomLincoln on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:39:37 PM EST
    are treating Obama as a media darling, and learning might just require them to state facts that do not fit their narrative. Isn't the treatment of Obama as a media darling what you liked about him in the first place?

    [ Parent ]
    And by "you" I mean BTD - NT (none / 0) (#216)
    by TomLincoln on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:40:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    BTD (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:53:59 AM EST
    Your post sums it up perfectly.  

    There has been so much talk about Hillary attempting to 'steal' the election from Obama.  I have always hated that terminology because it is impossible for a candidate to 'steal' an election.  It is possible for a candidate (and the media) to manipulate the electorate; however, the 'stealing' can only be done by an outside party (SCOTUS, DNC, etc.) and it looks like that's what's going to happen this weekend.

    I believe in my heart of hearts that Hillary is not going to get the nomination.  I have been saying the serenity prayer for several weeks now and I think I am beginning to come to terms with it.  That said, I truly believe history will judge Obama and the media very harshly for the way Hillary has been treated.  Will that be enough to make up for this disgraceful primary?  Not by a long shot; however, I'd be lying if I said it wouldn't be gratifying.  

    I truly hope Obama loses the general election.  Not just because I think he is utterly unqualified for the job, but because I don't believe in rewarding bad behavior.

    What history? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by ghost2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:14:19 AM EST
    We will all be dead. (To quote from W)

    [ Parent ]
    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by desert dawg on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:31:41 AM EST
    Amen.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I've always felt that (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by sander60tx on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:21:52 AM EST
    George Bush Jr. stole the election, once (Florida, 2000) if not twice (Ohio, 2004).  Maybe not him personally, but whatever entities acted on his behalf.

    You mention the serenity prayer... that suggests that we accept things we cannot change and change the things we can, and be wise enough to know which is which.  

    How powerless are we over these circumstances?  And what can we do to make a difference?   That is what I've been wondering about.  

    [ Parent ]

    I know this sounds incredibly defeatist (none / 0) (#213)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:14:02 PM EST
    and cynical, but I think we're pretty powerless to do anything about it.  It would be one thing if it was just Obama supporters vs. Hillary supporters; that would be difficult, but not insurmountable.  Unfortunately, it's Obama supporters + the DNC + the media (TV, print, blogosphere) vs. Hillary supporters.  

    It's not David & Goliath.  It's more like a bear cub in a trap surrounded by 1,000 hungry hyenas.  

    [ Parent ]

    The only thing we can do to protest (none / 0) (#214)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:15:23 PM EST
    is to switch our registrations to Independent and email or write the DNC to know it was done (maybe even scan a copy of your new voter registration card as proof).  

    It won't change a thing, but it will send a powerful message.

    [ Parent ]

    These (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:00:38 AM EST
    idiots won't get it until the voting results come in on election eve. They will look back then and realize that a lot of people were very serious about not voting for Obama. Right now any protest is viewed as a "bunch of silly women acting up" or "sour grapes". Even the Obama campaign has this attitude. In Nov. it will be too bad, too sad and too late.

    not just women (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:20:35 AM EST
    this is a crisis for all Democrats: for our party being the party of The Golden Rule.

    If its just another YOYO party for the spoiled rich, that is the end of FDR Democrats.

    [ Parent ]

    Here, Here (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:25:34 AM EST
    Agreed.  But in answer to other poster's query whether we are powerless, one only has to take a look at video of Joan Walsh speaking to Matthews & an Obama supporter - on Taylor Marsh.  What power.  She shut Matthews up while she got to speak entire paragraphs.

    [ Parent ]
    Hear! Hear! ... (none / 0) (#204)
    by cymro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:40:44 AM EST
    ... here, too.

    Wikipedia

    :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Are you referring to (none / 0) (#159)
    by madamab on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:21:32 AM EST
    the Dem debate, when the candidates were asked what their favorite Bible passage was, and Hillary answered "The Golden Rule"?

    That was the best answer of all. I didn't support her at the time, but I was very impressed.

    That Obama supporters cannot see (or do not care about the fact) that Obama is not an FDR Democrat is unbelievable to me. What would an Obama victory mean? What would happen afterwards? Do people even think that way?

    I'm just flummoxed, and very depressed, by what's happening.

    Oh well. Maybe hubby and I will move to France after all.

    [ Parent ]

    no I missed that reference (none / 0) (#201)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:26:27 AM EST
    but it is clear from her policies with their explicit promise of help for the poor, the old, the disabled, children, the discriminated against and the 67 cents on a dollar crowd....even her anti YOYO slamdunk of O'Reilly.

    She knows which is the party of love thy neighbour and offers no Unity Pony with the selfish party.

    [ Parent ]

    I am so sick of this talking point (5.00 / 16) (#7)
    by Kathy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:02:34 AM EST
    Obama said-before he even took his senate seat-that he would not run for president because he had neither the qualifications nor the experience.  There is a video of him saying this.  The words come from his own mouth: I AM NOT EXPERIENCED ENOUGH.

    If we are going to go back and throw words back at the candidates, why not go back to then?

    (and Clinton always said the votes should be counted, so you are at best misleading on this point.  She released a statement when Obama and Edwards took off their names, and several thereafter, saying that they should be counted.)

    Oh! Snap! (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by magisterludi on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:26:12 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This kind of willful (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by pie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:42:36 AM EST
    ignorance displayed by Obama supoorters day after day, even though they're called on it and lose the argument every single time, makes me have even less confidence in Obama's chances as a candidate.

    They don't have concrete reasons for supporting him - that was clear after they all jumped on the hope and change unity pony.  I was dismayed at the lack of reason and intelligence then.  It's even worse to see it continue.  It's all emotion and a failure to see the big picture.  

    That's what happened to help get Bush elected, but I don't see the same outcome here.  

     

    [ Parent ]

    The Repubs will not ignore that video -- it fits (none / 0) (#148)
    by jawbone on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:12:56 AM EST
    the McCain frame for Obama sooooo perfectly. Expect to see in over and over in 30 second ads, with various applications for different areas where the R's will claim Obama has little to no experience.

    [ Parent ]
    He talks so slowly (none / 0) (#208)
    by Foxx on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:07:51 PM EST
    it will be expensive for them.

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:03:49 AM EST
    Even if she had been fighting on this issue as hard as she is now from day 1, I still think MSNBC would neglect the facts of this story.
    You're Right (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by flashman on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:08:23 AM EST
    In fact, they know all of this.  It's simply rote dishonesly that they feign ignorance of these facts.  Chris Matthews, in particular, was schooled by the Florida Representative ( wish I could remember her name ) over the issues of Florida's votes multiple times on his show, and still acts as though he doesn't know the truth.  

    Interestingly, for weeks, on his show, he touted the popular vote as the most important metric, and the only one that should be considered by the SD's in making their selection.  Now that Hillary looks to be winning that metric, he changed his mind, and now it's the delegates that is more important.

    When this is all over, it won't matter to him or the other media types if the Democrats lose the GE.  They will have had a hand in distroying Hillary's campaign.  That's all they give a damn about.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, move the goalposts, (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by brodie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:16:49 AM EST
    ignore certain inconvenient facts about FL/MI/Phleger, do whatever is necessary to politically bury Hillary once and for all.  

    That done, it will be interesting to see if the non-Faux News outlets continue to run interference so niftily for Barack, or if they allow their longer-running lovefest for St McCain to prevail.  

    My guess is the latter, though in the GE St Barack will hardly be given the Hillary Treatment.  If the MSM were to swing too wildly too quickly in an overtly hostile anti-BHO way, even some of the half-asleep viewers would begin to wake up and wonder what's going on.  The media suits don't want that to happen.

    So BHO will likely get treatment somewhat less flattering than St McCain but slightly better than, say, John "Frenchie" Kerry.

    [ Parent ]

    My objection to this process (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Salo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:55:42 AM EST
    is how easily the press have built themselves into the process.

    This primary is a contract between the candidates; the voters and the super delegates.

    Where in the bylaws does it say that MSNBC get to decide the legitimacy of any internal party election?

    [ Parent ]

    lack of preparation is right.. (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by kc on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:12:09 AM EST
    I am constantly stunned by what the pundits get wrong. Maybe I just spend way too much time online, but people on the blogs I read are so much better informed than the people paid to report on this stuff----I wish we could bring a class action suit against them for --what? vote tampering or something. Just last night Anderson Cooper said that Obama had only known Pfleger about 2 years and I had just read that it was 20. I think they just make up stuff. This is actually dangerous.

    Interestingly (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:16:34 AM EST
    There will be a meeting about this tomorrow. We'll see what happens and if "Hillary affects it." I would argue that she already has affected it greatly.

    But the irony is that "not affecting it" will hurt Obama, not Hillary. It will hurt the Democratic Party, not Hillary personally.

    BTW (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:17:45 AM EST
    I am not in a tolerant mood for this type of BS.

    Make a real argument or say nothing.

    BTD - I emailed Todd (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Josey on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:19:10 AM EST
    and included excerpts and link to your diary.
    Yes, I was nice. ;>

    He usually responds, but we'll see....

    Chuck.Todd@nbcuni.com

    Chuck is a good guy (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:21:40 AM EST
    he knows all this. The man has to work. I do not hold their failings against him.

    [ Parent ]
    To me, if you report facts and (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:28:02 AM EST
    situations and are the "go to guy" and you're an honest broker, you tell the truth and not massage the facts to suit your bosses. Todd knows how important all this is and unless he's been drinking the kool-aid, I hope they are paying him lots of money. Who knows, maybe Todd will write a tell-all book and go on the talk-circut.

    [ Parent ]
    Good Guy, But He Is Slowly (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by flashman on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:10:48 AM EST
    being corrupted by the company he keeps.

    [ Parent ]
    Scotty McClellan also had to work (none / 0) (#45)
    by Josey on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:33:54 AM EST
    Why do we expect more integrity from our government than the corporate owned media that controls and manipulates election coverage and chooses our nominees?

    [ Parent ]
    Scottie's job was different... (none / 0) (#103)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:30:20 AM EST
    Frankly, I wanted him to tell the truth.

    But I knew full well that as the mouthpiece for the WHouse, he was going to lie, prevaricate, and put the WHouse's position on stuff out there.

    That the reporters were too whipped to do their jobs beyond reporting what Scottie said was pathetic. I expected the reporters to do their jobs and dig out the truth...and report the facts. They didn't.

    [ Parent ]

    hopefully, Todd will tell-all some day (none / 0) (#157)
    by Josey on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:19:31 AM EST
    but I'm not holding my breath.
    lol

    [ Parent ]
    If it's his job (none / 0) (#205)
    by Foxx on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:40:52 AM EST
    andhe's not doing it, then he's responsible.

    [ Parent ]
    I wonder what Matthews wife (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:25:50 AM EST
    has to say on this subject of Hillary hate, and the tingle he seems to get up his leg from Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I often wonder such things too (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:30:19 AM EST
    is Glenn Beck married?  By God if my husband said such things on the telly he'd be in so much hot water at home.  Smoke would be rolling out of my ears.  The children would have to go to grandmas.

    [ Parent ]
    that's funny because Beck (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by kimsaw on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:57:39 AM EST
    was on GMA this morning talking with Claire Shipman about sexism and politics. Of course he has inferred that Clinton was that "b" word and Shipman called him on it. He claimed Clinton could be characterized that way because after listening to a speech her voice reminded him of his wife telling him to take out the garbage.  All I could think of was this guy just called his wife a "b" on national tv. As a woman I'd know what I'd say when he got home, and lets just say its not for public consumption!

    Shipman also stated that they had asked Matthews and Carlson to join the discussion, but they declined. Shipman went on to say that "Beck was the only one to man up"! Got a chuckle out of that too!

    [ Parent ]

    Boilerplate 4 media watchdogs: Issue a correction (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:01:52 AM EST
    I have a hot trigger finger for sending an email with the header: Please Issue a Correction or Clarification, and where there's a sorting option, sending it under the fact checking category rather than the Highly Deletable Commentary category.

    (A lot of places have the radio button for whether your comment Positive or Negative with an express slide into the null bin.)

    A fact check is more likely to get attention, so cutting and pasting fact based work like BTD's and Jeralyn's gets it where it needs to go.

    [ Parent ]

    Todd has been echoing the pledged (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Exeter on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:44:40 AM EST
    delegate winner = nomination winner Obama spin since day one and that has really pi##ed me off.  He has been an integral component of the "no chance" meme.

    [ Parent ]
    Former NBC Reporter at CNN (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:28:50 AM EST
    Spoke on camera to Anderson 360 at CNN about her experience at NBC; they were speaking about Scott McClellan's statements in his book that the media did not do its job on the Iraq War; she (I don't recall her name) said there was lots of pressure at NBC to produce stories that were in line with what was going on, and the pressure -- quite subtle she said, but there -- was at its peak as popularity of War was as well.

    [ Parent ]
    Jessica Yellin (none / 0) (#173)
    by BDB on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:29:56 AM EST
    At least I presume that's who it was.

    Katie Couric has said the same thing about her time at NBC.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks (none / 0) (#187)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:51:22 AM EST
    Couric???

    [ Parent ]
    You know (5.00 / 18) (#25)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:19:42 AM EST
    If we were back in December 2007, and Hillary was fighting to allow two states that are favorable to her to vote early and have their votes counted, there is not a person on earth who would have said "wow, what a principled stand by Hillary, I really respect her for that."

    People get so caught up in the game of gotcha that they don't even think about the fact that it has NEVER been to Hillary's advantage for MI and FL not to count.  The reason she didn't make a big deal before January is that it would have alienated the early states while creating the appearance that she was trying to give two of her best states additional influence over the process.

    Imagine how corrupt it would have looked, for example, if the DNC wanted to take away all the delegates from FL and MI, and Harold Ickes and a bunch of Clinton supporters were the ones insisting those states receive some delegates.  It would have looked like they were trying to steal the nomination for Hillary.

    Yep (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:22:54 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Why Sen. Clinton's name was on MI ballot (5.00 / 5) (#115)
    by wurman on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:40:36 AM EST
    Nora McAlvanah, Huffington Post (link)
    Stripped of their delegates and access to candidates, Florida and Michigan held their primaries anyway. Barack Obama's name wasn't on the Michigan ballot -- an argument his campaign will no doubt make this weekend in contending the election was invalid. But this was a strategic, albeit shortsighted, decision his campaign made.

    As it turns out, Michigan was not only punished, it was also pawned. According to several sources, Hillary Clinton was literally tricked into staying on the Michigan ballot by a last minute effort to embarrass the then-frontrunner before Iowa.

    Sources with Edwards, Dodd and Biden's campaigns-- speaking on the condition of anonymity-- said they discussed a plan, apparently floated by the Obama campaign, to privately tell Clinton's team they would remain on the ballot and at the last minute remove their names. Thus, Clinton would be the sole name on a renegade state's ballot. The lifeguards, of course, would not be pleased.

    I personally don't care for the anonymous sourcing & the "several sources," so this may be gossip--but it seems to fit the overall picture.

    [ Parent ]

    A little-known fact (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:29:30 AM EST
    One short week before the deadline to remove his name, Obama was promising Michigan Dems that he would remain on the ballot:

    "We're going to hold a Jan. 15 primary," declared Debbie Dingell, a Michigan representative to the Democratic National Committee. Dingell, a leader in the move to Jan. 15, said she was angry with Obama and Edwards. Obama's campaign, she said, had assured her last week that he would remain on the ballot.

    All this stuff is way, way down the memory hole, it seems.

    [ Parent ]

    It's part of Obama's pattern, again (5.00 / 3) (#196)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:05:04 AM EST
    and frankly, it approaches the pathological in his treatment of women opponents.  His last-minute stealth attack on Alice Palmer, too, gave her and all other, lesser opponents no time to either mount a defense to stay on the ballot or come back at him and question his petition signatures.

    And he always pulls the oh-so-innocent crap afterward, too.  But please note that "prof" Obama taught a course in Voting Rights Law at U of Chicago -- he knows exactly what he's doing and how to do it in a way that won't let on what is coming.  That, of course, also can require that he lie, as again is evident in your link, Steve M.  (Good one, again -- you have quite a cache.)

    Obama seems to lie with such Bush-like ease that it ought to be unsettling to many, not just to me from the beginning.  Or, of course, he hires others to lie for him, putting up those walls of plausible deniability that we have seen before in the White House -- bringing to mind Nixonian and Rovian dirty tricks  This could be an utterly awful presidency, a nadir for Dems.  We all had best read up on All the President's Men and Bush's Brain and be ready.

    [ Parent ]

    Dodd and Biden (none / 0) (#189)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:53:17 AM EST
    both were on the ticket.

    Not sure I care for the behind the back planning idea...

    But that sounds odd.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#193)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:58:25 AM EST
    According to the Iowa Independent, five sources from five different campaigns confirmed the discussions initiated by the Obama campaign.

    Obviously, some of the campaigns chose to go along with the plan and some didn't.  Kucinich, hilariously, tried to go along with the plan but then botched the paperwork and had to stay on the ballot.

    [ Parent ]

    The idea that there was (none / 0) (#209)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:34:47 PM EST
    collusion between campaigns to make another look bad is...well...politics at its finest.

    [ Parent ]
    lack of preparation is right.... (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by kc on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:22:10 AM EST
    I have never seen anything so disturbing. People on the blogs I read know more that these paid pundits.

    The Paid Pundits know the truth. (none / 0) (#181)
    by vicsan on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:43:55 AM EST
    They just choose to keep it to themselves. They have selective memories. They want Mr. Hope to win. They will do NOTHING to help Hillary win this election and that includes giving the facts of what actually went down before MI and FL lost their delegates.

    Our MSM make Pravda look legit and I am serious when I say that.:(

    [ Parent ]

    I understand your frustration (5.00 / 13) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:25:26 AM EST
    I never realized how much of an ill informed pawn I was until I started reading blogs and then found and began to read the most factual blogs.  The media is no longer an informer, it's a player.

    I agree, (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by sander60tx on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:44:49 AM EST
    however, it makes me wonder about the basis on which we make these decisions.  I read this and a couple other blogs regularly (or should I say compulsively), but rarely watch TV except for election coverage and occasionally Sunday talk (which I can't hardly watch anymore).  

    But, there are others (like my parents, who are in their 70's) who believe that almost everything on the internet must be false... They read newspapers (like the NY Times) and watch TV, the sources they have trusted their whole lives, and they believe these sources to be more accurate.

    Bottom line... it is very hard to discern "the truth" anymore.  On what basis can we make that judgement?

    [ Parent ]

    I couldn't agree more. (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by vicsan on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:47:25 AM EST
    I'm lost without a computer. My husband reads the Chicago Trib every day and I read the Internet(s). I get the important news days/weeks before he does. My laptop is my newspaper. The TeeVee news is not news. It's propaganda. I get the REAL NEWS online.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with your sentiment, but (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by vicndabx on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:36:30 AM EST
    I think the problem is not that the pundits don't know, it's that they don't want to report it.  Accurate reporting of the facts would change the narrative that's already been etched in stone.  I find it hard to believe they don't know about the timetables and which states did what when.  I also find it hard to believe they don't know about the 50% penalty and how it wasn't applied to states other than FL & MI that jumped the gun.  Now all we hear about is 50% - cuz that fits in with the Hillary can't catch up crap.  The state of our news media disgusts me.  You gotta wait till Sunday and hope a show like Media Matters on CNN even covers these omissions of facts.  Absent that, most folks won't have any idea what a bunch of f*ck-ups these clowns are.

    Get your facts straight, (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by desert dawg on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:39:10 AM EST
    demsforlife:

    NHPR, October, 2007:

    (caller Q)

    HRC: I signed the DNC pledge not to campaign, not to spend money, in any of the states that were not in compliance with the rules established by the DNC that certainly strongly maintains NH's status.  I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot...(remarks about people of NH & IA wanting to win GE)...But if you look at some of the states we have to win, the margins have been narrow, and it wasn't in my view meaningful, but I'm not going to say that there's absolutely a total ignoring of the people in all these other states that won't come back to haunt us if we're not careful about it.

    ( Host Q re: then why not just take your name off)

    HRC: I personally did not think it made any difference, uh, whether or not my name was on the ballot. You know, it's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything, but I just personally didn't want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever and then after the nomination you know we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win in Michigan in November 2008.  I'm not going to campaign there before the deadline of the February 5th window, I'm not going to spend any money there, but I did not believe it was fair to , you know, just say, "Goodbye, Michigan" and not take into account the fact that we're going to have to win Michigan if we're going to be in the White House in January, 2009.

    (Host Q re: do you think it was a tactical mistake by Mssrs Obama and Edwards to take their names off?

    HRC: Well, they have to speak for themselves.



    Thanks (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:00:02 AM EST
    I will now delete any further comments like Demsforlife as they are deliberately misleading.

    [ Parent ]
    Chuck Todd has been inconsistent (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:43:12 AM EST
    I remember on Super Tuesday, Todd provided the most pro-Obama delegate count possible, pretty different from other networks.  Of course Keith "McCarthy" Olbermann praised him for his "accurate" counts.

    I suspect that Todd succumbs at times to the pressure from the primetime boys at MSNBC and ducks from reporting facts.  I suppose he has to do it to keep his job, although I very much hope he'll someday find a job elsewhere.

    I believe Matthews knows the facts about FL/MI.  He's simply playing stupid.

    Matthews is not playing stupid (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:44:17 AM EST
    If you get my drift.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL, yes I do. ;-). (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:46:21 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    heh (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:53:21 AM EST
    Reminds me of a scene from Lawrence of Arabia:

    General Murray: I can't make out whether you're
    bad-mannered or just half-witted.
    Lawrence:  I have the same problem, sir.
    Murray: Shut up.



    [ Parent ]
    Exactly, BTD, "not playing stupid" (none / 0) (#59)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:48:06 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Just the kind of (none / 0) (#125)
    by pie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:50:55 AM EST
    "quality" one needs to run for Congress, heh?

    [ Parent ]
    Inner pigs, talk to the pigs of the left (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:48:14 AM EST
    This purports to be a criticism of the media, MSNBC, in particular, but then he enjoys the bashing, the favoritism etc.  So, the left is proving that they are the pigs that MSNBC is expressing the inner pig for.  
    THE NEW REPUBLIC
    Dangerous Liaison
    by Isaac Chotiner
    The pro-Obama case against MSNBC's pro-Obama political coverage
    They didn't--but only because the exit polls, predicting a good night for Obama, happened to be right; the coverage itself was exactly the same. And this was only the latest example of the network's undeniable Obama favoritism. David Shuster's comment about the Clintons' "pimping out" their daughter, Chelsea, was clearly boneheaded, but, as Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson pointed out, it caused such a stir among Clintonites because it highlighted the rest of the network's anti-Hillary coverage. Now, that's not to say that their slant has been bad for business; to the contrary. And it has certainly made for some enjoyable television--Matthews is often supremely engaging (who, after all, does not enjoy watching someone exclaim that seeing Obama speak gives him a "thrill going up my leg"), and however withering he can be, Olbermann is frequently hilarious. But the network's coverage has helped create a bubble around Obama supporters that in the end is neither healthy nor desirable.
    What is interesting about it (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:55:19 AM EST
    is that he recognizes that this blatant bias is now hurting Obama.

    I have said that Obama's supporters are his worst enemies.

    [ Parent ]

    Speaking of Olbermann (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:20:18 AM EST
    I read a funny on TVNewser.  Apparently, Rupert Murdoch was asked if he'd hire Keith Olbermann.  Murdoch replied "No, I fired him five years ago...He's crazy."

    The funny part is instead giving the quick snarky retort that the commment deserved, Olbermann -- not surprisingly --lapsed into a 7 paragraph diatribe, that you can find here.

    I suspect Olbermann was beaten up as a child.  He is about as un-cool as anyone can be.

    [ Parent ]

    It is absolutely true (none / 0) (#99)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:27:47 AM EST
    that they ALL read TV Newser.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you for making me read that drivel :-D (none / 0) (#151)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:15:05 AM EST
    It makes me doubly grateful to whatever entity or process created me, audio baseball and flesh colored earbuds should the unthinkable happen and I ever be seated next to an insufferable bore like Obamann.

    [ Parent ]
    And Not Ever All That Funny (none / 0) (#156)
    by flashman on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:19:09 AM EST
    His jokes are usually more representative of a 12 year old mentality.

    [ Parent ]
    As ludicrous as MSNBC clown media are ... (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:36:25 AM EST
    ... and when I do watch,* I vascillate between spit takes and outrage, is the dismissal of overt bigotry for plain rubber-necking.

    And it has certainly made for some enjoyable television--Matthews is often supremely engaging (who, after all, does not enjoy watching someone exclaim that seeing Obama speak gives him a "thrill going up my leg"), and however withering he can be, Olbermann is frequently hilarious. But the network's coverage has helped create a bubble around Obama supporters that in the end is neither healthy nor desirable.

    OMFG, imagine any writer talking past bigotry as overtly racist as the overt sexism that is routinely involved in the Hillary-bashing because there's "enjoyable television" at the end of it.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:50:31 AM EST
    This after the week they all told us sexism did not come into play.  This guy was published with this drivel in an allegedly serious magazine and he finds this abhorent stuff enjoyable.  These are the people that are sitting and judging the West Virginians and the Kentuckians.  I keep saying, they are no better than the Neocons.  Same mentality.  

    [ Parent ]
    MSNBC want the Obama demographic (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:51:34 AM EST
    It is not about news, analysis or democracy.  Obama has this demographic which is touted as the future.  MSNBC is trying to lock it in.  They want to and they must have Obama win.  I will never forget the night he won Iowa, Timmey kept talking how great this would be for business.  

    I wonder if the likes of Matthews, (none / 0) (#79)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:01:53 AM EST
    Todd, Beck etal, have daughters and how they would feel if all of this was directed to them, or for that matter, their wives.

    [ Parent ]
    No problem (none / 0) (#121)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:45:09 AM EST
    cause they will be buying them all those Jimmy Choo shoes with the money they will make and when they go to the Hamptons.

    [ Parent ]
    Obamann scrubbed pix of his 20-something SO (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:25:03 AM EST
    ... who was caught in the precise Blondes Behaving Badly Beat he doggedly covers with fellow middle-aged doughboys like Michael "Britney's Sooo Fat" Musto.

    If he doesn't already shave daily while delivering the At Long Last, Have You No Decency Sir speech to himself then I call upon all the gods of karma and male grooming to make him the f*ck do it starting tomorrow.

    [ Parent ]

    Ok, gossip: When and what? Any links? (none / 0) (#174)
    by jawbone on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:29:59 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Damn, I Googled it a few weeks ago (none / 0) (#180)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:40:25 AM EST
    I can't remember the name of his live-in girlfriend but it was tipped in a comments section.

    The pic came up on Google image search: she was goofing around at a party with some guy's head in the general boobal area. Can't remember whether any actual nasty bits were exposed, but were she on Obamann's Special Beat no doubt one of those Play By Play sports screen pens would have been whipped out to highlight it for Lo-Def TV owners.

    It might still be cached if you hurry! (Coupl'a few links might hit the jackpot.)

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, too right! When KO compared his show to (none / 0) (#171)
    by jawbone on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:29:14 AM EST
    O'Reilly's, he always focused on the young, mostly male, demo as the primo win, if he had won.

    [ Parent ]
    The only way to protest NBC/MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by soccermom on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:53:02 AM EST
    in any meaningful way is through their local outlets. I have already emailed my local NBC outlet to let them know I will no longer watch or allow my children to watch their station. It's deleted from the remote. When I hear or read that their news department changes, I will consider returning to NBC. Unbelievable that I would consider Fox the most reliable news on TV.

    SNAP! (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:54:16 AM EST
    (NOTE: It is not just the Media, it is also bloggers like Matt Yglesias who continues his competition with Josh Marshall to become the next David Broder.)

    seriously.  but the list needs to be much longer....

    (and I gotta say that WKJM is one of the biggest disappointments ever -- he coulda been the next IF Stone...)

    In short, the people who will be covering this event tomorrow for the Media will know NOTHING at all about the actual controversy. But we are supposed to treat them with anything but utter contempt? Sorry, all they will get, from me at least, is contempt. And they probably deserve worse.

    What bugs me is that these people have been exposed to the information that 'they won't know', and simply reject it in favor of what passes for 'conventional wisdom' in the Village.

    They all have an 'understanding' of what happened, and the fact that they get detail wrong doesn't matter because of 'the big picture' which they 'know' represents 'the truth'.  The idea that their 'big picture' is based on a mountain of details that they have wrong never occurs to them -- each detail they get wrong is treated as a discrete entity, and they are able to maintain their 'understanding' by acknowledging their errors only when it comes to individual (and thus irrelevant to 'the big picture')  details.  

    The Irony (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by BDB on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:24:06 AM EST
    Is that so many claim to be fueled in their support for Obama by Iraq and now they are embracing the same media practices that led to the Iraq run-up.  Couldn't many of Scotty McClellan's criticisms of the mainstream media also now be made of a lot of A-List bloggers?  

    What makes the media terrible is not that they prefer Republicans, it's that they are not interested in reality or facts, the most important things to advancing progressive causes and making good political decisions.  Trading one set of false facts for another is not an improvement and does the country no favors, IMO.

    As for FL/MI, the best part is that it will be televised.  I'm hopeful after reading the excellent letter Michigan wrote that the states' representatives do a good job pushing their case.  That's what's most important now.  It's no longer about winning, it's about making a record.

    [ Parent ]

    Coverage (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by garage mahal on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:59:27 AM EST
    They will spend hours talking about Hillary wanting to nefariously count votes in two outlaw states, against the rules. And because she wants them counted, that must make it evil.

    They will not discuss if counting votes is the right thing to do, if it's good for the party, if it's good for Nov, or bring anyone from either state that might think counting votes is a good for their state.

    Indeed (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:01:44 AM EST
    Why? Because politics is a game to them, nothing more. And as BTD says, they hate Hillary and don't actually know anything about the MI and FL issue anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    And The Democratic Party (none / 0) (#167)
    by BDB on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:26:19 AM EST
    Will play to them.  They won't see the danger because the media has led them to believe there is no danger in not counting votes.  Nevermind that the polls I've seen indicate most Americans want votes counted and have said the popular vote should decide the nominee.  But then most Americans wanted a full Florida recount in 2000, too.


    [ Parent ]
    What news? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by fctchekr on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:06:11 AM EST
    The LA TIMES and NEW YORK TIMES have absolutely no coverage on Pfleger. This is a la Bush coverage, the press, for whatever reason, timidity or outright cover up, it is no longer covering the news. They are deciding the election, saying this isn't a big deal; Anderson Cooper said on CNN last night, "Much ado about nothing."

    Ditto there is no understanding about what really happened with the five states that broke the rules, the arbitrary decisions that were made by the DNC and that in fact Obama did campaign in FL and did take his name off the ballot by his own choice.

    They don't care. The question we should be asking is this all to get McCain elected? No matter what the pols say, I can't see where Obama can prevail.

    I am in utter schock to think that in 2008, what should be a good year for Democrats, my own party has revealed it's just another version of the Republican machine..was my party....

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:12:46 AM EST
    what I don't get? It's the fact that the GOP will force the media to cover Pfleger, Wright and every other dubious association Obama has had simply by running 527 ads. They are going to look even worse than they do now for their reluctance to discuss this stuff.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by ruffian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:25:25 AM EST
    Obama's people always think they have put an issue to bed once they survive one news cycle.

    [ Parent ]
    there us a reason for the lack .. (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:25:47 AM EST
    ..of coverage.

    The media decided that Obama will be the nominee.  And that means that only the Obama and McCain campaigns get to set the media agenda.

    I guarantee that if the McCain campaign had flogged this story the way that the Obama campaign flogged the Argus RFK story, it would have gotten coverage.

    Its glaringly obvious that the McCain campaign wants to run against Obama rather than Clinton, and knows that all he has to do is wait a few weeks before the campaign starts driving up Obama's negatives.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah but it was at the top of the Today show.... (none / 0) (#141)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:08:12 AM EST
    ...which probably means more people were exposed to it that way than would have been from the front page of either of those newspapers. I'm sure its also gone super viral. It's just too wild of a video. When I saw it this morning I couldn't figure out if the guy was trying to be funny. The problem is that this time, in contrast to the Wright tapes, what they will play over and over again are the mocking of Hillary....rather than the parts that would more likely shock Americans about whites enjoying the entitlements of slavery. However, you know thats the part that will be featured prominently in 527 ads. Republicans don't care about Hillary. And the media is so shortsighted in their own disdain of Hillary that they don't see the real problem for Obama in that video. Yikes. This campaign is NOT going to be pretty.

    [ Parent ]
    And I thought (none / 0) (#152)
    by riddlerandy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:16:32 AM EST
    this thread was about the media on MI and FL.  I got a bit off topic and my post was gone in a nanosecond.  Guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#177)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:34:08 AM EST
    The New York Post has a gigantic front-page banner on Pfleger.  "JUDAS PRIEST."

    [ Parent ]
    I and the heavy metal band I worshipped for 12wks (none / 0) (#192)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:58:00 AM EST
    ... before my parents disappeared the album are all deeply offended by the connection!

    And this is a band that put exquisitely tasteful standards like Ram It Down!

    [ Parent ]

    It's amazing to note how often historically (none / 0) (#186)
    by brodie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:49:54 AM EST
    the NYT and LAT treat major stories or potentially major ones in tandem lockstep, either not covering them at all or downplaying them in curiously similar dismissive ways -- almost as if they were both controlled in actuality by the same political editor.  

    In this case, I can't find anything about Pfleger in the print edition of the NYT, and the LAT has buried the story quietly in the back pages.

    [ Parent ]

    NBC views "political correctness" (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Exeter on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:30:14 AM EST
    like double "no passing" center lines that they have to obey during certain traffic situations. At a very basic level, they don't believe that sexism is wrong and that permeates their whole culture.

    At one time, I thought the sexism was limited to (none / 0) (#165)
    by jawbone on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:25:05 AM EST
    Tweety (and I wondered how his wife, Queen Kathleen, could put up with it) -- Now I think it is pervasive. The women are tolerated if they know their roles and place. When they step out of line, they get the glare, then the hook. Anyone see Stephanie Miller on after she said Tweety was being a tool?

    They have decorative value, along with their brainpower, which is not to be discounted in all cases. But, wow, some of the daytimers? Who writes their stuff?

    I'm currently trying very hard to stay away from MSNBC. Get two hours of life back, not a bad exchange.

    [ Parent ]

    Keith Olbermann (none / 0) (#169)
    by BDB on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:28:19 AM EST
    Has a long history.  Way before this primary he had regular segments that were insulting and degrading to young female celebrities.  Apparently, it shows great intellect and wit to repeatedly call Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton whores.   Somehow, young male celebrities never got the same criticisms.  Hmmm, I wonder why?

    [ Parent ]