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 / 15) (#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 / 5) (#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 / 5) (#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 / 17) (#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 / 12) (#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 ]
    Olbermann more mysogynist (none / 0) (#199)
    by Exeter on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:24:59 AM EST
    Olbermann is clearly a mysogynist that is occassionally sexist. Tweety and the rest aren't mysognists, but are almost always sexist.

    [ Parent ]
    If anyone has access to CNN (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by vicndabx on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:34:06 AM EST
    they're running a story on Obama's "Bare-Knuckled Past"

    I disagree that they don't know the details (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:35:40 AM EST
    The MSNBC staff, especially Matthews, are professional political junkies who lived through these events in real time and reported on them as they occurred.

    They also have production staff and meetings before they go on air.

    To get it wrong now is a deliberate act. They could have random slips, but to get it all wrong, in a pattern that benefits one side, is deliberate.

    They know they have it wrong or either don't care or think they are doing a proper job on reporting perceptions, not facts. After all, politics is perception. Their view of political reporting may be to report the perceptions,  assuming all the while that their audience is caught up on the facts.

    BTD have you seen this Pew (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:42:45 AM EST
    study on  Clintion women supporters and Obama.  
    Obama's slipping image is in some measure a negative reaction from frustrated Clinton supporters. Currently, just 46% of those who support Clinton for the nomination say the party will unite behind Obama if he is the nominee. In March, 58% of Clinton supporters said the party would rally behind Obama if he is the nominee.

    Recent declines in Obama's image have been pronounced among whites -- especially white women. Currently, just 43% of white women express a positive opinion of Obama, down from 56% in late February.

    Favorable opinions of Obama among independent voters, who have provided him strong support in several of his primary election victories, also have declined over the course of the campaign. Obama's favorable ratings among this pivotal group have fallen from 62% in late February to just 49% in the current poll.
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:56:36 AM EST
    and the GOP hasn't even started yet. I expect to see him suffer a 10 pt loss to McCain in Nov.

    McCain 55
    Obama 45

    Even with it being a supposed bad year for the GOP in the end people are going to have to vote for the candidate. I see lots of wins in the house but I'm sure those candidates will be throwing Obama under the bus.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't know how anyone can watch (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by Anne on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:50:46 AM EST
    TV anymore.  Seriously.

    It seems like the media are just not configured for anything that cannot be explained in between commercial breaks, or into which they cannot inject their own bias so as to guarantee that the viewer/listener reaches their desired conclusion.  It's not even infotainment anymore, mainly because there is a dearth of factually correct information, and it's not particularly entertaining to watch a bunch of over-the-hill frat boys sit around and snicker and gossip.  And it's disgusting to see women going all "Mean Girls" on one of their own, or sitting by while their male colleagues do it.

    The sad truth is that they don't care, they have no commitment to facts, to educating the public or - perish the thought - speaking truth to power.  They think they are the power and truth is what they say it is, so there you go.  So much more fun to say mean things about people they don't like, to talk before the cameras they way they do in the back room.

    That being said, they are always the first to get all serious and stern and accusatory when the things they helped engineer in the first place don't turn out so well - is there anything more tragicomic than watching Russert or Blitzer turn up the heat on people for whom they were cheerleading only months earlier?

    I would say they are worthless, but what they really are is unprincipled and devoid of character - traits that are more dangerous than harmless.

    Atrios Explains the Yglesias/WKJM Narrative (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Dan the Man on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:06:50 AM EST
    From Eschaton

    "Left of center blogs filled various connected vacuums which were created by a triangulating-against-itself-Democratic party, a media with a "no liberals on TV or radio" rule, and the post-9/11 media prostration to the Bush administration and its complete abdication of   its responsibility with respect to the Iraq war, all of which followed  its campaign 2000 prostration to the Bush candidacy. Overall what blogs have been able to do is create an unfolding political narrative which has been largely absent elsewhere. Sometimes it's about emphasizing different things, sometimes it's about combating DC conventional wisdom, sometimes it's about highlighting things which are being ignored. But taken all together it's about telling the story of politics in a different way."

    Yep, our left of center blogs are now countering the MSM narrative by parroting the MSM!

    Heh (none / 0) (#142)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:08:17 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    A more disgusting public display of sexism and (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:08:42 AM EST
    racism I haven't seen for a long time, if ever.

    And that it was received with cheers?

    Puh-leese.

    My Venn diagram circle does not overlap with their Venn diagram circle.  Nope.

    in addition to that (none / 0) (#168)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:27:33 AM EST
    This priest has or had an official position on Obama's campaign.  And, the new minister of TRinity church that Obama told us was so great applauded this priest at the end of his performance.

    Even more alarming is the defense of this that I have seen by HuffPo bloggers this morning.

    They all say this priest was absolutely right and said nothing wrong at all.  They agree with every point the priest made and are applaudinh him as heavily as the church goers did.  This isthe part that always amazes me.  Obama supporters always claim there is never anything sexist against Hillary, because she is Hillary and deserves it.  They claim this wouldn't happen to anyone other than Hillary.  BUt, she has brought it on herself.

    [ Parent ]

    What? That's terrible (none / 0) (#198)
    by daria g on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:19:41 AM EST
    I have realized through the course of this primary that a lot of so-called liberal bloggers, pundits, and even a few people I know don't seem to share any liberal values.  It's a free country but how you can be a progressive and still applaud that kind of rant is beyond me.

    [ Parent ]
    Meanwhile on NPR ... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:16:59 AM EST
    ... Ken Rudin gave his breezily dismissive summary of all the misinformation he could muster.

    They Know... (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by bmc on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:21:48 AM EST
    I'm not sure they "don't know." I think at least some of them absolutely know; but they aren't sayin'. They aren't sayin' because they don't want viewers TO KNOW.

    I've watched mainstream pundits for years, and thought "how stupid can you be, if I know the facts about this, why don't you?"

    Are they obtuse? Or are they obstructionists with a purpose?

    I have come to think it's more the latter than the former.

    Fox is still covering this (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:31:02 AM EST
    I hope this is not off topic.  Fox is covering the back and forth statements... Obama, Pfleger and Wolfson... they reported Pfleger is meeting with the Archdiocese this morning to discuss this.  Apparently Pfleger's mixing politics and religion (as Pleger pointed out on his video) has been an issue for Pleger before.

    I like watching Fox.  I focus on how they are going after Clinton's Dems.  This stuff is perfect for them.  They are focusing on Pfleger mocking Clinton.

    I expect Fox to completely understand the FL/MI issue, know the rules inside and out, and come up with a very clear explanation of what happened and how the elitist DNC favored Obama.  In fact, I expect a whole show just on this issue.  

    Well look at that, here we go:  9:28 here on the West Coast....
    DNC member Joel Ferguson (Clinton supporter)- plan fatally flawed.  Q: stacking the deck? A: no, can't solve breaking rules by breaking rules.  DNC can only determine punishment not outcome.  Can not give undecided to candidate.  They will go undecided and vote for him. Q: what do you want? A: seat as is, Obama not off ballot, no style pts for voluntarily taking your name off in ME, he was highlighting other states and pandering, self serving, press making it viable.

    Good focus by Fox on facts and tone did not reflect well on Obama.

    So you (3.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Jgarza on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:14:52 AM EST
    are complaining that they didn't have wall to wall coverage of what some priest said about Hillary Clinton.  So you think this should be a campaign issue?

    Sounds like another attempt by BTD to play to anger in the primary.  I love how you talk about unity, and then have these passive aggressive posts designed to make Clintons supporters angry.

    So the anti-white rant didn't bother you? (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by davnee on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:34:32 AM EST
    If you hate Hillary enough to believe that it isn't newsworthy when she is mocked and denigrated from a pulpit for crying over the failure of her evil racist machinations more power to you.  Do you feel equally unimpressed by the significance of the suggestion, made from the pulpit of a presidential candidate's spiritual home to a cheering crowd of his own spiritual brothers and sisters by a spiritual advisor of said candidate that white Americans are evil and undeserving of their good fortune and must repent for the ongoing rape they perpetrate?  As a white person, I kinda want to know where I stand in the estimation of my president.  If I'm just over-privileged and inherently evil scum to him I kinda want to know that.

    [ Parent ]
    Just trying to get you all (none / 0) (#179)
    by pie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:34:32 AM EST
    to wake up and smell the coffee.  Yesterday, I asked repeatedly what Obama supporters would do when the republicans gleefully start dishing this stuff out if Obama's the nominee.  Not one of you would answer.

    That's because you don't know.  You blissfully believe that the media will come to his defense or will ignore it or some other faith-based solution.

    You poor naive fools.  You don't even know what's headed your way.

    [ Parent ]

    For every issue there is a time (2.00 / 4) (#8)
    by lgm on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:02:36 AM EST
    There is a time to argue every issue.  There was a time to argue the primary rules -- before the primaries.  Whether or not it was the right decision then to strip Florida and Michigan, that is what they decided and all parties (reluctantly?) agreed to, Clinton included.  

    Remember 1968, that shining success year for Democrats.  They argued rules at the convention and outside. One of the candidates refused to concede even though he had little chance of being nominated.  The eventual nominee was weakened and lost the election.  

    Things are different now -- Clinton is not McCarthy and her supporters are not the cream of the counter culture.  Richard Daily is not the mayor of Denver.  Clinton is much closer than McCarthy was.  But still there is a lesson to be learned.

    Since that is your view (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:13:45 AM EST
    I expect you to retire fromt his discussion immediately.

    I mean it. you said the time was back then to discuss it and since you feel that way, at least at this site, you do not get to discuss it. Comment no further about the Florida and Michigan situations at this site.

    I am perfectly serious. I am holding you to your word.

    [ Parent ]

    Gosh, you are so quick. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:57:37 AM EST
    Do you ever argue in court?  That, I'd love to see.  Were you on a debate team in your past?

    [ Parent ]
    It is what I do for a living (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:00:57 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    So you do argue in court? (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:06:34 AM EST
    Some lawyers don't.  I'd hate to see what you charge.  :)

    [ Parent ]
    I do (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:58:58 AM EST
    I charge a reasonable amount for the services I render.

    But I am a corporate mouthpiece, not a do gooder. So hold that against me.

    [ Parent ]

    Is (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:07:22 AM EST
    your brother as smart as you? Just in case I ever need a lawyer, heh!

    [ Parent ]
    Smarter (none / 0) (#135)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:57:51 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And doncha just love it (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:42:34 AM EST
    when people who weren't even a gleam in their parents' eyes in '68 instruct those of us who lived through it on what really went down?


    [ Parent ]
    always time (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:38:16 AM EST
    There is always tinme to argue.  But, to your point, both of these states did argue about this issue before the primaries started.  And, whether Clinton's position on this has changed over time or not is really irrelevant.

    These two states have every right to appeal to the DNC Rules committe and then to the Convention Credentials Committee with or without the support of either of the candidates.

    No one involved in the issue of seating the delegates for MI and FL is changing or breaking any rules.  they ar simply following the established rules of the DNC.

    Please remember that at the same time everyone agreed to strip these states of their delegates, everyone also agreed to the two methods for getting the delegates seated:

    1. Revote
    2. Appeal to the DNC Rules Committee and/or the Convention Credentials Committee.

    Everything happening is completely within the RULES

    [ Parent ]
    The democrats had bought America Vietnam (none / 0) (#188)
    by Salo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:52:19 AM EST
    and the electorate on the left was fractured--the moderates were looking elsewhere.

    The wrangling at the convention was  symptom of the problem not the cause.

    [ Parent ]

    what are you talking about? (1.00 / 2) (#10)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:04:16 AM EST
    Mathews said at least twice that this was his first time experiencing this and he didn't know why it was an issue, he DID say that women rightly so had legitimate questions about sexism in this campaign but that he had to think about this new video before he could talk about it. since it was just sprung on him.

    so what you are saying is how dare you Mathews not make a gut reaction and say you have to actually think over the issue before you had an opinion on it?

    you got sexism and disrepect for Mika from this?

    wow

    And you believed him? (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:11:39 AM EST
    you believe Matthews had NO IDEA of the existence of that video?

    Whatever.

    [ Parent ]

    thats true (1.00 / 2) (#19)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:16:15 AM EST
    I mean if he said he didn't know about it he must be lying because that fits perfectly into the its all the Media fault meme.

    [ Parent ]
    I asked you a question (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:19:38 AM EST
    do you believe he had never heard of the video until this morning? this is a self pronounced news junkie who works at a news organization.

    And you believe him when he says he had not heard about it?

    Answer my question, do you believe he had NOT HEARD about that video this morning? Yes or no.  

    [ Parent ]

    I Can't Believe He Said That (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Decal on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:35:59 AM EST
    I flipped on Hardball last night to see what they were saying about the video and it never came up.  Yet FOX was running with the story at the exact same time.  No way Matthews hadn't heard about it then let alone this morning.  He flat-out lied today and his attitude towards Mika showed he was peeved about having to talk about anything bad for Obama.  Contrast that with his endless "probing" of Hillary's RFK comment.  

    [ Parent ]
    Mark it: On this day in history (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:44:14 AM EST
    for the first time known to woman- and mankind, Chris Mathews said he would not give a knee-jerk reaction.  Note that such reactions are his and most of the media's specialty.  Yet this time, for the first time, and for the sake of one candidate, Mathews wants to wait and think about it.  

    We can be confident that he will have completed the thought process soon after the story no longer is nooz, and then why would he want to bother our pretty little heads with his thoughts about it?  By then, he will owe the American viewing public more knee-jerk reactions to whatever just-out video favors his candidate.  You read it here first.  You read, of course, why Mathews' reply today lacked all credibility based on the fact, TruthMatters(Not) that media, like politicians, have records and reputations upon which we can base our judgments of them.

    [ Parent ]

    I do not know (1.00 / 3) (#38)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:29:25 AM EST
    I give him the benefit of the doubt if he says he didn't hear about it ok.

    I mean I heard about it from this site, becuase it was on No Quarter thats it, had I not been here I wouldn't have heard about it.

    and do I really believe he'd care more about Scott's new book then this? what was the media completely focused on in the last few days?

    so untill you actually provide some reason to show he is lying besides the as a political junkie I assume he knows 100% about ALL political stories, if he says he is just finding out about it he is just finding out about it.

    I don't just give the people I like the benefit of the doubt, I take people at their word untill I can prove they are lying.

    and i am tired of the whole everything is sexism meme, to me VERY little of how Hillary was treated would change if she was a man, the media doesn't like her, and not because she is a woman, but because of how she treated the media in the 90's just because she they are unfair to her has nothing to do with sexism unless you can show they are ONLY doing it becuase she is a woman.

    can anyone do that? no, but crying sexism is the new way to deal with the fact that she lost and she lost because she ran a terrible campaign, and because the Clintons and the Media have a sour history.

    [ Parent ]

    How SHE treated the media? (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by Fabian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:33:10 AM EST
    Refresh my memory, because I don't remember any stories about how Hillary Clinton abused the media.  I seem to remember the reverse actually.

    BTD's Media Darling theory wasn't conjured out of thin air.  It relies in part on the media's long and consistent history of Hillary bashing, with and without the sexism.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:33:36 AM EST
    Even Barack Obama says the way Clinton was treated in the 90s was not her fault.

    Nice to see you think it was.


    [ Parent ]

    If you are tired of the sexism meme (5.00 / 7) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:35:53 AM EST
    I would advise you to steer away from the meme and simply observe the blatant sexism.

    [ Parent ]
    I will ignore everything (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:36:49 AM EST
    except your answer. You say that because YOU only learned about this video at this site, then of course that makes Chris Matthews, whose job it is to be informed about political news, denial credibel to you.

    You do know I hope that major news organizations, INCLUDING NBC, covered this story? You DO know that Barack Obama issued a statement about it? You do know that Pfleger himself apologized for it? You DO know that there was not a person in the entire political world who did not KNOW about it?

    Of course there were many who ignored it, that is their right, but there was NO ONE, NO ONE, in the entirety of the political world or the news world, EXCEPT apparently Chris Matthews, who did not know about it.

    But you take him at his word. That says something about you in my opinion.

    [ Parent ]

    yes, but the coverage (1.00 / 2) (#56)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:46:18 AM EST
    AND the statement happened THIS morning, at least I never saw it on MSNBC before today,

    and this video I saw what yesterday here? does this mean NBC ignored it all day yesterday? could be or isn't entirely possible that people emailed and linked it to MSNBC and for them they found out about it this morning?

    isn't that possible? so then isn't it also possible that as soon as Matthews heads into work boom he finds out about the new video? I mean just because you were on the story yesterday doesnt mean NBC knew about it, they probably could have.

    but once again untill you can show they did, they deserve the benefit of the doubt just as much as people cried Hillary deserved it. I could be wrong but it seems its TODAY this story is breaking into the MSM, now I don't watch fox news so I could be wrong they could have been on this yesterday, but as far as I can tell, this story seemed to hit the MSM today, so is it really that hard to believe that Matthews is first hearing about it when he went into work?

    you have no proof or evidence he did know before now, you just assume he just HAD to know, and thus you are now attacking and basing a judment on him based on your assumption.

    I am simply saying why is it so hard to believe that a story that was in the blogs yesterday, is just getting up to the National anchors desks this morning? it wasn't even 24 hrs after you were talking about it before it was at a National level, there are THOUSANDS of stories that he probably knows about that no one discusses becuase its not sexy enough for people.

    so yes plain terms, Innocent untill proven guilty.

    [ Parent ]

    P-L-E-E-Z-E! They all read from (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:50:55 AM EST
    the AP, and all other sources. Of course NBC and affliate knew about this yesterday. They "chose", until Dan Abrams, not to discuss it.

    [ Parent ]
    That is simply false (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:52:50 AM EST
    The statements all came out yesterday.

    The video came out yesterday morning.

    Dan Abrams covered it on MSNBC last night on his show.

    Look, that you knew about it yesterday due to its coverage here and not because you saw it elsewhere does not mean it was not covered. It was indeed covered extensively.

    I am not saying Matthews had to cover it, I am saying it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe he had not heard about the video this morning. It is impossible to believe that.

    Consider what that says about Matthews the self-professed political news junkie?

    Look, play this stupid game all you like, Matthews did not want to talk about Brzezinski's topic of choice and his dodge was to say he had not heard about it.

    If you want to believe that obvious lie, then you must be someone who believe we all owe George Bush and his Administration an apology for calling them liars.

    Here's my last question, why are you doing this? Why are you behaving this way in this thread? Are you really believing the things you are writing?

    [ Parent ]

    you know BTD (1.00 / 3) (#76)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:01:38 AM EST
    you have the thing to assume the worst of anyone who doesn't agree with you, and that I won't wonder why thats fine.

    but had you read my post you would see that I was assuming that the MSM didn't know about it untill today, I was hanging with my brothers yesterday so I didn't watch my usually amount of news, I didnt know Abrams was talking about it yesterday, as you saw I thought it hit today.

    in that case yes Mathews probably did know about it and just doesn't see it as a story becuase as he said he'd rather talk about Scott's book and go after the administartion.

    and yes I always believe what I write or I wouldn't write it.

    instead of this always attacking that you seem to do to BHO supporters here more simply you could have said.

    "you premise that it broke today is wrong, infact it actually DID break yesterday and yes it was on Fox News and MSNBC's Verdict yesterday"

    that would have changed things, but once again you ASSUMED I knew this and went from that.
    and you assumed that i knew and was causing trouble, not giving ME the benefit of the doubt and seeing what i had written that I was mistaken when the story broke.

    you seem to always assume the worst of anyone who is not on your side. and it reflects in your posts and comments.

    [ Parent ]

    You were wrong (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by lilburro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:08:45 AM EST
    and you still refuse to see Chris Matthews' lie for what it is?  I'm sure Chris Matthews wants us to see him as a valiant liberal crusader, dogging the Bush admin.  But he's actually a sexist pig.  If he didn't see it as a story, he should've just said so.  Instead, he lied to Ms. Brzezinski and stuck his fingers in his ears on the topic.  Nice.

    [ Parent ]
    Your assumptions were utterly wrong (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:11:13 AM EST
    And as for assuming the worst in people, it was YOU who accused me of unfairly maligning Chris Matthews.

    Our interchange in this thread is a wonderful example of what I am talking about - people bloviating about things they have no idea about.

    You played the role of Chris Matthews in this thread. It was quite unflattering for you.

    [ Parent ]

    and i still say you are wrong becuase (1.00 / 2) (#91)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:19:30 AM EST
    of this
    treating Brzezinski with a disrespect that was simply of a piece with the nasty sexism that MSNBC has generally fostered

    maybe I have the definition of sexism wrong, but to me this says that had Mathews been asked about this by a man, he would have talked more indepth about it.

    to me anyone who would have asked him that this morning he would have said the same, it was not a topic he cared about nor did he want to talk about it, but what did he say, no its Mikas show if she wanted to speak about it they would and they did, but it was obvious Matthews didn't care for the story. that you equate this to sexism was my problem with your post and it still is.

    Matthews not wanting to talk about this subject has nothing to do with sexism unless its your belief that had Mike Barnacle asked him about it he would have no problem speaking of it.

    when you say sexism, I expect you to tell me how Mika being a female influenced Chris's behavior this morning otherwise you are wrong to label it sexism, and me being wrong about when the story broke doesn't change that.

    [ Parent ]

    It's amazing (5.00 / 7) (#104)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:32:00 AM EST
    how obtuse people can be when the subject is sexism.  BTD didn't say it was sexist that they didn't want to discuss the topic.  He said they treated her in a sexist and dismissive manner.  That's something that can only be judged by watching.

    This is similar to all the people who would prefer to avoid a reasonable discussion about the role of sexism in this campaign by raising the strawman that Clinton supporters believe all criticism of Hillary is sexist, or that the only reason Hillary is losing is due to sexism.

    [ Parent ]

    obviousy and (1.00 / 2) (#111)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:37:06 AM EST
    I countered that for it to be sexist it has to be based on Mikas sex

    so I asked would BTD expect a different answer from Chris had Mike been the one to ask the question first.

    obviously if he says yes, thats fine, but if he would expect Chris to answer in the same way, then its still disrepectful, its still dismissive, but its not sexist.

    just becuase Mikas was a woman doesn't make it sexist, you have to honestly believe that mathews anwered the way be did BECAUSE of the fact Mika was a woman, I disagree and I say BTD was wrong to even imply so.

    but thats my opinion he is entitled to his.

    [ Parent ]

    I honestly believe that (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:56:55 AM EST
    if it had been a man putting the question to Matthews, he would have reacted differently.

    I think Matthews' record of behavior makes my position not only tenable, but powerful. You have not a leg to stand on imo.

    [ Parent ]

    That is where you are wrong (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:34:36 AM EST
    If it was Scarborough, he NEVER would have behaved that way. Barnicle would NEVER have behaved that way. They treated Brzezinski with great disrespect.

    You are either blind to the sexism involved or do not care about it. Either way, you are the one with a problem.

    [ Parent ]

    once again (1.00 / 2) (#114)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:39:42 AM EST
    we disgree as to what would have happened that doesn't mean I have the problem and you really need to quit it, I can disagree with you.

    just becuase YOU see sexism doesn't make it so, sure just becuase I didn't also doesn't make it so.

    but its to easy for me to say well if you saw sexism its because you have a problem, you are dimissing me becuase I don't agree with you I think had joe been there and asked, Chris would have answered the exact same way, he didn't care for the story.

    now is it ok if I disagree with you on that without you insulting me for once?

    [ Parent ]

    No (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:55:33 AM EST
    you DO have a problem. I post at this thus site as a front page poster and will continue to post my opinions.

    If you do not like what I write and do not want to comment on what I write, you have a simple option, change the channel.

    I choose to write about what I see in the Media and when you respond in the way you do, I will comment on that as well.

    I promise you this, I will not comment on what you write at other web sites.


    [ Parent ]

    Have you ever actually watched (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:57:31 AM EST
    Matthews, Scarborough, Barnicle et al interact with Mika?  I think probably not.


    [ Parent ]
    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#176)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:32:05 AM EST
    You didn't even watch and yet somehow, you know that he didn't react in a dismissive and sexist way!  Unbelievable.

    [ Parent ]
    Not to speak for BTD on this (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:14:16 AM EST
    But you just described the Obama movement.

    [ Parent ]
    But what you're saying isn't even common sense (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:24:43 AM EST
    You might not have been aware of the vid but it's stretching credulity to imagine that Hatthews wasn't aware of it or able to see what was going on upfront.

    You don't even have to parse the bigotry, misogyny and character assassination going on.

    You don't have invent the connection between those doing it with Obama. It just can't be clearer.

    [ Parent ]

    If it was directed at Michelle Obama, (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:56:28 AM EST
    I bet the reaction would have been different.

    [ Parent ]
    So why would you whack away (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:52:35 AM EST
    at this subject when you apparently knew you didn't know what you were talking about?

    I find that very strange.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't you think it's a little silly (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:49:52 AM EST
    to keep speculating when the facts are out there?  Fox was on this all day, just for one.  You prepared to suggest the MSNBC folks don't keep track of what Fox is giving heavy coverage to?

    Political reporters and pundits live in a sea of gossip.  It's what they love best about their jobs.  If Matthews had been holed up on a desert island or undergoing surgery or something, I'd believe he maybe didn't know about it.  But he spent the day in the MSNBC studios.  You think maybe his phone doesn't work?

    This is really silly.


    [ Parent ]

    Since I don't watch that station (none / 0) (#53)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:44:11 AM EST
    anymore, was this subject even discussed on his show last night?

    [ Parent ]
    If you mean Hardball (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:47:20 AM EST
    No, it was not discussed. Indeed, it was ignored all day by NBC UNTIL Dan Abrams mocked Fox's fixation on it.

    My point is not that he HAD to cover it. My point is that it is NOT credible that he had not heard about it. which is what he said.

    [ Parent ]

    He's borrowing the excuse from Barack (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:33:17 AM EST
    When the first Rev Wright tapes wer made public it was a Thursday and Barack was in the Senate. I forget what, but something specific brought them back to the Senate that day, and video was available to prove they were there.

    On Friday night, Obama told Olbermann that he didn't hear about the release of those tapes until Friday because he was working in the Senate. Olbermann let that be his final answer.


    [ Parent ]

    Its hard to say (none / 0) (#130)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:55:34 AM EST

    but he could be truthful on this.  If so, it speaks to his filter.  You can easily assumne that no one at NBC will bother informing Mathews about any story with anti-Obama or pro-Hillary or pro-Bush content as he has no use for such.  They are a waste of his time.

    If he was telling the truth, its much worse than if he was telling a fib.

    [ Parent ]

    Ok (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by lilburro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:43:16 AM EST
    so despite the fact that this was on Fox News, an MSNBC competitor, yesterday,
    despite the fact that MSNBC waits on every word that Obama says, and he put out a statement saying he was disappointed in Pfleger yesterday,
    despite the fact that Pfleger apologized yesterday,
    despite the fact MSNBC had a story on this 12 hours ago (Thursday night), according to Google News,
    you think Chris Matthews innocently missed this video?

    Matthews is either lying or has his head deeply, deeply in the sand.  In any case, I don't see that head coming out to give us a thoughtful reflection on the statements in that Pfleger video.

    [ Parent ]

    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:45:59 AM EST
    It was on NBC too. Dan Abrams covered it.

    [ Parent ]
    oh, I didn't know that. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by lilburro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:49:20 AM EST
    That makes Matthews' assertion more ridiculous.  I, unlike Matthews, at least have an excuse, I don't work at the durn station!!

    [ Parent ]
    It was covered extensively on CNN as well (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:09:10 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    ABC covered it in detail as well (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by bjorn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:15:28 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Didn't you say that the video (none / 0) (#113)
    by KristenWinters on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:39:18 AM EST
    had nothing to do with Obama?

    I agree with you.  The fact that Sean Hannity and Faux News ran with the non-stooy confirms your original post, which in all caps stated: THIS IS NOT ABOUT OBAMA.

    [ Parent ]

    Ahhh, but did he mean it. If this (none / 0) (#126)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:51:50 AM EST
    was not about Obama, then why did Obama issue a statement, Father Mike, issued a statement mentioning Obama, Father Mike was on Obama's staff, should I go on!! Obama was all over this!!

    [ Parent ]
    Nonsequitor (none / 0) (#127)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:52:26 AM EST
    The question is had Matthews heard of it.

    [ Parent ]
    That's your opinion (none / 0) (#185)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:48:29 AM EST
    My opinion is.... I can see where Obama gets his sexist attitude and why he is so willing to get a free ride from the media which has been drowning in sexism this year.  He belonged to a church which I and many view as over the line with it's attitude towards 'european' americans and women.

    You really don't think it's a problem?  Really?  pffft.

    [ Parent ]

    Abrams told the same lie (none / 0) (#191)
    by Salo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:57:31 AM EST
    I never heard of Father Mike until today.

    it's such BS.

    [ Parent ]

    Taking his cues from Obama (none / 0) (#207)
    by Foxx on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:03:24 PM EST
    I never heard that. I didn't know that.

    [ Parent ]
    oh please (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by lilburro on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:11:45 AM EST
    when has Chris Matthews taken the time to "think" through anything?  When have we ever recieved a thoughtful and detailed analysis of anything from him?  That's just one way for Matthews to push Plfeger's comments aside.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't see the point in discussing this (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:13:17 AM EST
    with anyone who can't undestand how the sexism and racism issue has played out in this campaign.

    Yes.  I'm sure Mathews acknowledges the possibility that sexism is a problem, and that he has to review and think about it some more.

    Yes.  Markos will deal with sexism, .... when the time comes.

    If these are sufficient statements for a certain group of people, then the disconnect is too fundamental to consider further discussion.


    [ Parent ]

    Glenn Beck on GMA (5.00 / 9) (#29)
    by Kathy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:22:22 AM EST
    was interviewed by Elizabeth Vargas about the sexism, specifically his allusion to Clinton being a b!tch.  Vargas played the tape.  Beck's explanation was that he wasn't calling Clinton a b!tch, he was saying she was acting like a b!tch.

    And then, this is the part that got me, Vargas said she was offended by that, and Beck just skated over it.

    Chris Matthews is a word I can't even use @ and #! for, because I think it would insult half the people here.  He needs to "think about" sexism?  How about looking in a freakin' mirror, you twit.

    [ Parent ]

    indeed you are right (1.00 / 3) (#23)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:19:32 AM EST
    it seems some have gone to the tired excuse of blaming all Hillary's problems on sexism, or on the media, or on the caucuses, or on the DNC

    as long as Hillary doesn't have to admit she screwed up on Feb 5th when she wasn't ready for the caucus states.

    does that mean there wasn't a problem with sexism in this campaign? no, but please when people start crying sexism at EVERYTHING, and calling anyone who is against Hillary sexist.

    it makes me wonder am I really sexist as I keeped getting called or do they just not want to admit Hillary's own mistakes

    speaking for  me only.

    [ Parent ]

    You donot have to wonder (5.00 / 8) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:20:39 AM EST
    you are not a sexist. you just malignly accept it.

    I have written about people like you for a while now. check the archives.

    [ Parent ]

    without further review (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:27:30 AM EST
    I think it's obvious that Clinton's strategy team did not have a sufficient plan for gaming the caucus system.

    To get back to the topic you brought up, how media folks have dealt with certain issues in this campaign, I am quite sure, I have seen it at every level of punditry, the phenomenon by which one comes to certain realizations after the primary is over will remain in full effect.


    [ Parent ]

    The results of the caususes (none / 0) (#194)
    by Salo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:58:50 AM EST
    were an historical aberation.  There's probably nothing she could have done to shift the people who bothered to turn up to them.

    [ Parent ]
    Retrospective Analysis... (none / 0) (#200)
    by santarita on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:26:19 AM EST
    occurs as the primary season ends.  Is it a surprise when people try to determine the factors in the success or failure of a campaign?  Sexism, media bias, media laziness, poor campaign strategy are all factors in Hillary's losses but are not the only factors and may or may not be the necessary and sufficient factors in explaining the losses.

    Why it is important to you that Hillary and/or her supporters admit her mistakes?  This is not a morality play.  Obama and Clinton and their advisors are politicians who game an imperfect system.  It seems that Obama and his advisors were better at gaming this imperfect system.  Is that something to be proud of?  Does that make Obama and his advisors morally or intellectually superior to Clinton and her advisors?  

    [ Parent ]

    OK, how come he had not seen it? (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:25:48 AM EST
    It was mentioned in the Yahoo headlines with the story. We all saw the video right here yesterday morning. The headlines now say the dear Father has apologized to Hillary. I thought Chris ate news 24/7. Maybe he came home yesterday and turned his phone off along with his PC and television. Then today he could have reason to be surprised that something new was sprung on him. Isn't that the whole idea on Hardball? To ask the questions no one else will ask?

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, but he did not (none / 0) (#137)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:00:27 AM EST
    apologize to Hillary!  Didn't even mention her.  He issued one of those weasely general apologies about "if anyone was offended."  The coverage of this has barely mentioned Hillary, actually.


    [ Parent ]
    Right (none / 0) (#197)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:16:19 AM EST
    I just read the Priest apologizes for insulting Clinton headline on CNN. But, it was a headline and Tweety should have noticed something as there were so many clues. Maybe because his head is so far up his posterior........

    [ Parent ]
    What he had to think about (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by ruffian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:29:56 AM EST
    Was how to calibrate his response in a way that balances his Obama-love and his McCain-love.

    That is a good sign for the GE, but no less disgusting compared to his treatment of Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:04:17 AM EST
    But I suspect there would have been another excuse.  The delegates that are against her are not against her because she did not come forward early on FL and MI.  They just don't want her in power.

    newsreaders and bloviators (none / 0) (#40)
    by Lahdee on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:29:56 AM EST
    It's too complicated for them. Yet, the newsreaders and bloviators are the wise of America, they must be revered. As we've heard often from the right and it's corporate media "trust us."

    Average Joe/Joanne doesn't know if newsreaders and bloviators don't know what they're talking, they only know who has the microphone.

    They can shred the votes but not the voters (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ellie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:53:29 AM EST
    Great job, BTD, on doing the homework in all of this.

    This insane media CDS confuses the poll numbers they're crunching and the Roolz they're bottom-dealing from the deck with actual votes

    Votes aren't words, theories or other abstracts but represent voters who'll be needed in the general election. I'm appalled that this doesn't enter into these head games.

    Even if (none / 0) (#89)
    by 1jane on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:17:05 AM EST
    the Democratic Party seated Florida's full delegation, Sen. Clinton would gain less than a quarter of the delegates she needs.

    That's true (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:23:58 AM EST
    It's too late to do anything about FL and MI.

    What impact they would have had on the election can only be measured in terms of momentum in a process that is specifically structured to make momentum a central feature thereof.

    And they were stripped of that, and it can't be given back.

    They were removed from the process and process is now over.

    [ Parent ]

    Obviously, if they are meeting about (none / 0) (#100)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:29:57 AM EST
    this tomorrow, the "process in Not over."

    [ Parent ]
    Well they still play (none / 0) (#108)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:35:29 AM EST
    162 games after one team has clinched the division.

    Define it.   The process of finding a nominee is over.  According to some experts.

    And FL and MI were removed from THAT process.


    [ Parent ]

    How has he "clinched" I thought there (none / 0) (#139)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:06:03 AM EST
    was a number to be reached in the primary, which he has not reached, and only, then only, at the convention in August when all the votes are said and done is one woman or man the nominee of the dem party. Same is true with the repubs. That's whay they call them "Presumptive" nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    This is a false Obama talking point (none / 0) (#138)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:02:51 AM EST
    In fact, if you look it up, she said from the beginning that she believed the votes would absolutely be counted in the end.  I don't have the exact quote at hand, but it's been posted here frequently.
    One scary thing about this Pfleger incident (none / 0) (#147)
    by nulee on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:12:30 AM EST
    is that unlike the Wright flap, which was bad for Obama, Pfleger articulates a dark narrative that is just hateful of Hillary but to some will be seen as having nothing to do with Obama.  

    Not to me thought - I am so disgusted that Obama keeps this kind of company.  I think Obama knows exactly what he is doing and this is very destructive.

    As BTD has made clear (none / 0) (#162)
    by riddlerandy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:24:23 AM EST
    that performance has nothing to do with Obama, repeat, nothing to do with Obama

    [ Parent ]
    Chuck Todd (none / 0) (#150)
    by kaybeel on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:14:56 AM EST
    Chuck Todd and David Gregory are the most fair at MSNBC. I say that as a former non-fan of Gregory.

    Well, Todd and Stretch are among (none / 0) (#163)
    by brodie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:24:40 AM EST
    the least obnoxious MSNBC employees -- the worst of course being Mouthhews and Obamermann.

    Dunno about "fair" though wrt Stretch.  Last I checked his show, he still has 2 obviously pro-O pundits on consistently -- Gene Roberts and Rachel Maddow, both never IDed as pro-O, btw -- and the only one of the other two panelists who has a fair thing to say about HRC is usually their in-house RW nut job, Pitchfork Pat.

    Todd I think just knows who signs his paychecks, and has read the internal GE memos and can read between the lines about them, and so is careful not to discuss too many inconvenient facts about the race which would spoil The Entitled One's victory over Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    the only fair one (none / 0) (#175)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:30:31 AM EST
    at MSNBC has been Dan Abrams.  But, I don't think anyone actually watches his program.

    And, I think they let Pat B. do the Clinton defense because they know the way he does it will sound offensive to everyone anyway.  You know, they practically introduce him as the white supremicist supporter for Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    Right, Abrams overall (none / 0) (#183)
    by brodie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:45:22 AM EST
    in the past 5 months has been fair and honest, not every show, but most of 'em.  One of the first on that outlet that I saw who gave airtime to consideration of whether the MCM was treating Hillary fairly and O with kid gloves.  He's done several segments on that topic.

    I thought though that he treated the Pfleger video last night a little too softly and seemed reluctant to tie him too closely to Obama, and like all the rest at MSBHO he failed to get into the interesting details of the financial contribution relationship between the priest and the candidate.

    I'm also not sure he's up to snuff on all the contradictions about rules violations/exceptions that are in play with the FL/MI situation.  

    No question he's about the only watchable program on that outlet.  And for sure Mr Larry on CNN probably blows him out of the water in the ratings.

    [ Parent ]

    I have been told many times (none / 0) (#153)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:16:40 AM EST
    by Obama supporters on sites such as HuffPo that Obama doesn't NEED my support in November.  So, I plan to take them at their word and will not support Obama this fall.

    At this point not even Hillary herself could convince me to vote for Obama.  there is one and only one way I can now be convinced to vote for him in the fall.

    1. The DNC must follow ALL the rules in their decision this weekend.  That includes admitting that FL was entitled to a waiver because of their efforts to amend the FL law that moved up the election.  They must also strip Obama of any delegates from FL because he broke the no campaign rules in FL twice.

    2. Donna Brazile must make a public statement that she intentionally twisted Bill Clinton's fairytale comment in order to make it something it was not and apologize for it.  THis public statement must be published on all the pro Obama blogs.

    3. Michelle Obama must make a public statement and apology that she did the same with the fairytale remark in order to begin the process of eroding Clinton's support in the black community.  This must also be published on all the pro Obama blogs.

    4. The Obama campaign must make a public statement that it was also a campaign strategy to play the race-card against Clinton when ever they could find any statement that could be falsely claimed to be racist.  This includes Shaheen's comments about drug use.  Comments about drug use were never considered out of bounds in 92 against Bill Clinton or in 2000 against GW.  They certainly had the right to claim the drug issue wasn't relevant has GW did in 2000.  But, they had no right to claim it was racial.

    5. The Obama campaign must make a public statement that they intentionally stopped the revote efforts in both FL and MI.

    6.  The Obama campaign must make a public statement condemning the behavior of his supporters on blogs such as HuffPo, AmericaBlog, DailyKos etc.

    7.  Obama must offer Hillary the VP slot if he is the nominee and it will be her choice as to whether she wants it or not.


    This is the makings of a petition (none / 0) (#203)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:32:32 AM EST
    you could set up on the 'Net.  This is brilliant, encapsulizing so much of what I think, too -- so let me be the first to sign it to make clear just what are our conditions for Obama and the Dem party (I have a few more to add for what Dean and others must do) to regain our votes.

    Of course, you and I know that this is so not going to happen.  So off I go, only voting downticket -- but not for some of my state and local Dems, who could have stepped up so also have disgraced themselves in all of this.

    [ Parent ]

    The Media And Michigan And Florida | 209 comments (209 topical)