Not Covering The Convention

Corrente catches this bit from Chuck Todd:

Beginning Tuesday night and extending at least midway through Wednesday, you’ll have to forgive those of us in the media if you hear us humming the song “You’re So Vain.” The Clintons will probably think this convention’s about them.

Interestingly, there is nothing stopping NBC and CNN and so on from actually covering the speeches being delivered by people OTHER THAN Bill and Hillary Clinton. It is not Bill and Hillary Clinton's fault that Chuck Todd, Chris Matthews and the entire NBC network can't help themselves. Excuse me Chuck, that is an incredibly stupid thing to say. I hope you are not too vain, cause even though this post is about you, it is to point out a stupid thing you wrote.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Convention Open Thread | Convention Open Thread 2 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Never understood (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:34:21 PM EST
    why you like the guy, maybe you can tell us?  

    Todd says it was all over in Feb and undoable (none / 0) (#54)
    by andrys on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:23:50 PM EST
    Todd gave his usual 'authoritative' address to the voters last night saying the decision was irreversible at the end of February and there was no way for Hillary to win, which was shown, he said, and that her people were encouraged to think there was a chance and that this thien became a problem for the party.  Meaning you know what, as usual.

      He said this a couple of times.  Can the guy not even GET the basic DNC rule that there was a required number of ELECTED delegates to make it a sure thing?  Until the superdelegates stepped in there was NO sure thing.  

      NBC does it again.  Brokaw is at least vocally unhappy about the MSNBC slant, saying that NBC is more than Olbermann and Matthews.  I also heard him say that the Clinton supporters felt she was badly treated by the media and that in many ways she was.  That's a paraphrase but it was nice to hear him say it.  Of course Huffpo adherents said Brokaw was in the tank for Clinton.  No, he's just an old-fashioned journalist, but they are not 'for' that.  Anyone not for their candidate should be tossed off the air to read the forum notes there.

      Until the media stops beating up on Clinton of course someone of us will speak up against it.



    After Rachel Maddow (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by bjorn on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:28:25 PM EST
    called clinton supporters "post rational" last night the shot was thrown to Tom and he kind of went after her by talking about all her academic credentials and then turning to Sebelius says, now you and I can talk in language people can understand.

    Rachel really pulled pack the curtain on Obama last night without even realizing it.  Buchanan told her if she wanted to win over Clinton supporters she should not call them "post rational."  Rachel's reply was "I am not trying to win anyone over, I am trying to win an argument."  I thought that described nicely the very cerebral and emotionally disconnected Obama campaign.


    Seriously. He is awful. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by liminal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:31:01 PM EST
    He also claimed that Obama has trouble with a certain group of Clinton supports (most likely to be female, under 50, poorer (i.e. less than 50,000/year), and liberal/moderate rather than conservative) because Hillary and Bill Clinton went out and campaigned in rural American and "told people in rural American that Obama wasn't ready and John McCain was."  He said that twice, while I was listening, and I tuned in for approximately three minutes this evening, no more.

    Hey Chuck Todd!  I saw Bill Clinton speak twice in rural America, and HRC speak three times.  Never once - not ONCE - did they praise McCain on the campaign trail.  They spoke extensively about the importance of a Democratic agenda, and the ruin that the Republicans have inflicted on this country.  

    Oh, yeah - and at one stop, I saw a member of our vaunted press corps (to be fair - a British reporter I've never seen) "sneak" into the crowd in order to taunt Bill Clinton and call him a racist (seriously) while he was trying to shake hands with locals.  That said: I didn't see Chuck Todd.  And he doesn't know what he's talking about.  Why on earth do we allow these media people to continue to swill their hogwash at us?  


    Can you even believe that (none / 0) (#80)
    by abfabdem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:58:34 PM EST
    members of our own party are the ones gleefully beatng up the Clinton's?  What kind of alternative universe did I enter since the 90's???

    Just posted this in the prior thread (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by litigatormom on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:36:08 PM EST
    I didn't know that it applied equally to Chuck Todd.


    A little while ago Tweety was interviewing Lisa Caputo, Clinton's press secretary when she was First Lady.  Caputo was talking about how strongly Hillary would speak in favor of Obama, and Tweety interrupted her and asked, "So what is the Clinton's sinister plan for restoration to the White House." Seriously. Well, okay, he didn't use the word sinister, explicitly.  But his tone of voice said it all.
    Caputo laughed and said, "I can't believe you are asking me this question." Tweety said, "Are you telling me there is no plan for restoration?"  Caputo said, "The Clinton's only plan is to get Barack Obama and Joe Biden elected."  Tweety was not satisfied with this answer.

    He's bent on making Hillary look bad, the sore loser, the renegade who will destroy Obama's chances.  And yet, in the lovefest for Ted Kennedy last night, there was no mention of the fact that he NEVER endorsed Jimmy Carter in 1980, and in fact made Carter run after him on stage in order to grab Kennedy's hand and raise it in the air for the most awkward "unity" salute ever.

    Even Olbermann is embarrassed by Tweety insistent desire to provoke someone into saying that Hillary is bitter and is out to sabotage Obama. He's stuck to the "previews of the speech show she will strongly back Obama." And if Olbermann is embarrassed and defending Hillary, you know things are bad.

    Why does Chris Matthews exist?  Can someone explain that to me?

    Maybe someone can explain to me why the highly touted "professional" and "dispassionate" Todd has been infected by Matthews desire to report on a non-existent coup d'etat?

    you beat me to my question (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by kimsaw on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:43:07 PM EST
    how do these guys still have jobs?

    That's just too easy (none / 0) (#39)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:15:25 PM EST
    Read the comments day after day and all the people who quote what they just saw those guys say!

    They have the viewers that bring in the advertisers that pay for the programming that keeps them in jobs...well paid jobs. If you want them to go away, you have got to stop giving them ratings.


    Not me (none / 0) (#55)
    by D Jessup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:24:21 PM EST
    I won't even watch them when I workout at the YMCA. I only get basic TV at home and felt bad about watching the Olympics.

    tune in on C-SPAN online (none / 0) (#73)
    by Iris on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:42:14 PM EST
    they actually have the convention speakers on there and not just endless babbling and interviews with Spike Lee...

    I've been disappointed in NPR (none / 0) (#62)
    by litigatormom on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:32:19 PM EST
    and PBS too.  They are a little more staid and articulate, but in the end they pick up the same memes.

    Don't expect these people to remember (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by SoCalLiberal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:50:55 PM EST
    facts or real history.  They're too busy bashing the Clintons to care.  

    See the thing is, Bill Clinton is nothing but poor white trash to them.  But unlike Carter, Clinton was truly successful and succeeded against the odds.  And these elites can't STAND that.  Barack Obama is an African American but he fits right into their elitist group.  


    Same sort of thing on FOX last night- (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by kenosharick on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:37:21 PM EST
    a close Clinton confidante (cannot remember who) was asked about Bill's upcoming speech, and when told that the former president would give his full support to the ticket, the reporter acted shocked and announced it as "you heard it here first." What are these people expecting the Clintons to do? Stage a coup from the speaker's podium?

    Yes (none / 0) (#70)
    by litigatormom on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:39:48 PM EST
    At least, they're hoping to provoke one.

    Chris Matthews exists to talk Clintons 24/7 (none / 0) (#67)
    by bridget on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:36:40 PM EST
    year after year, decade after decade.

    He said it himself in a recent v. long magazine interview that whether at the dinner table or at parties, the subject numero uno are always the Clintons. The village people can't get enough of Bill and Hillary Clinton. The interviewer witnessed it himself when he was guest at the Matthewses.

    Oh, and if the Chuck Todds et al think they are helping Obama by talking nonsense like the above, they are so mistaken. What they accomplish is They are upsetting Dems, they are annoying Clinton supporters even more. But they don't care.


    Wow. How low can he go? I thought he was (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Teresa on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:36:18 PM EST
    going to be a decent media person until this primary. Ugh.

    I sent BTD's diary to Todd (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:23:19 PM EST

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:35:14 PM EST
    Let me check my e-mail to see if Chuck responded.

    They're so vain... (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by DET103 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:36:39 PM EST
    ...the probably think they are journalists.

    the= (none / 0) (#6)
    by DET103 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:36:52 PM EST

    I'm sure Chuck won't mind (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by kredwyn on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:36:45 PM EST
    if he overhears me muttering "Stupid is as stupid does" in his general direction...

    I'm sure he'll understand.

    it fascinates me (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:37:35 PM EST
    -- in a strangely perverted way -- how the First African American Nominee for President isn't a big enough ratings story for those bobbleheads on the 24-hour cables news (cough) stations.  Obama seems to be an afterthought at his own Debutante Ball.

    THEY, the Media, make it All Clinton, All The Time.  Not the Clintons.  And, in doing so, they diminish Obama and his candidacy while strengthening Hillary.

    It's odd.  It's almost like they somehow know their paychecks are dependent on Hillary (and Bill) somehow, somewhere being the story in someway.  That Obama isn't "sexy" enough news to keep the masses entertained and/or interested.

    Yikes!  What does that say about our Nominee?!?!

    do you really think.... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:50:57 PM EST
    -- in a strangely perverted way -- how the First African American Nominee for President isn't a big enough ratings story for those bobbleheads on the 24-hour cables news (cough) stations.

    do you really think that the Obama Campaign wants his race to be a major story?

    While Obama doubtless pushes that angle for BET, he doesn't want American to be hear the words "African American Nominee" repeated endlessly, even if they are preceded by the wrod "first"

    personally, I think that these conventions are so "programmed" that no one pays attention to anything that happens anymore.  Americans are now so cynical that Obama could start exhibiting signs of stigmatic bleeding and emit a warm golden glow, and Americans would be saying "geez, they did that better in Last Temptation of Christ".

    what these conventions need is a reason to pay attention -- they need actual debate on the platform, for instance.  I was shocked and angered when I read how the leadership of a grassroots campaign to include HR 676 (medicare for all) in the platform not merely sold out for a minor change in the language of the platform, but congratulated itself for doing so.  

    Would it not have been far better -- not only for the cause, but for the party, to actually have a serious debate about health care that the networks can focus on for its controversy, rather than make them create this Obamoids vs Clintonites nonsense?


    That's why Michelle was the "closer" (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by SoCalLiberal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:52:06 PM EST
    When there were undecided black voters who wondered if Barack was one of them, she'd show up to prove to them that Obama was one of them.  I don't think she will be the closer in the general.

    Michele was featured... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:26:17 PM EST
    ...because they wanted to "reintroduce" her after her personality makeover -- the "real" Michele Obama is much like the real Hillary Clinton -- and if you think America has problems with strong, intelligent women, think of the problems it has with strong, intelligent, black women.

    If Michele Obama was the nominee, I'd probably vote for her, because she'd be speaking with her own voice, and she would be powerful.  Now, she's been reduced to a prop...


    Yup. First time I saw any (none / 0) (#71)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:39:48 PM EST
    footage on her, I had a flashback. Unfortunately, Obama fans were too busy trashing Hillary to see she could be MOs support. Too bad MO didn't also see the advantage of Hillary in her future.

    Right (none / 0) (#51)
    by DanR3 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:21:52 PM EST
    Huge group, those undecided black voters.

    I also read that the Democratic National (none / 0) (#84)
    by hairspray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:20:39 PM EST
    Committee refused to reform their caucus system.

    It says nothing about our (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by shoulin4 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:15:31 PM EST
    presumptive nominee. It says everything about how the Clintons:Cable News::Clintons:Popular Culture.

    There is more than enough about Clinton-public-life that outshines anybody. Nobody cares about the presumptive First African-American nominee, and even though as much as the speech givers at the convention say it's historic, I don't think Americans see it as historic because they're too busy focusing on the civil war going between the supporters (fans) of the empty suit and the supporters (true Democrats) of the the woman who actually ran a historic campaign (unlike the other guy) and who was on everyone's hit-list simply for being a strong woman.

    To say that it is the media alone who make it about Clinton all the time, however, is not entirely true. There are (as many polls indicate) many Clinton supporters who are p!ssed off and don't show any sign of trying to hide their displeasure. Case in point, the protestors. The media hasn't gotten over it, and neither has the entirety of the Clinton base. The Clintons themselves aren't out and about and twirling their evil mustaches and constantly working up schemes to make sure their names are mentioned twice as much as Obama's. They have enough a public life that they don't need to even try, regardless of whether they even want these things to happen. The media is still living on the controversy the Clinton's provided in the 90s and in the primaries, and some of Hillary's supporters are producing the exact same results as the media is, just in a different way.

    "I guess I'm going to vote for Obama, but Hillary was much more qualified and treated unfairly. They were labeled as racists and Hillary was treated horribly by the sexist media, with no help from her opponent. I don't understand why I should even vote for the guy after he ruined Hillary's historic run with his rabid anonymous bloggers and his hate-filled misogynistic men supporters. You know what, I'm just not going to vote for him because Hillary really was the more qualified candidate and he didn't even choose her as his running mate. I mean, seriously, she brings so much life experience to the table, even McCain brings a lot of life experience, and all he brings is a speech. What am I going to tell my daughters if a non-qualified black guy was selected over an over-qualified woman, in the face of the long history of the unfair treatment of women? Should I just let the DNC get away with that?! Obama makes so many mistakes, we'd have this election in the bag if people would open their eyes, stop the hate, and vote for Hillary. I'd be better off writing in her name, or even suffering under four years of McCain, because all that means is that Hillary will have her chance again in 2012 to be able to say 'I told you so' and take her rightful place as the nominee and president, which was stolen from her."

    What part of that was about Obama's historic position as the First Historic African-American presumptive nominee?

    Also, I'd like to apologize if my post meandered. And I'd like to say that the opinions expressed in this post reflect solely the poster and are not in any way being presented as solid, irrefutable fact.


    I think (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:56:47 PM EST
    one of the major problems is that Obama is boring. He's done nothing to create excitement about his candidacy during the last six months. The "First African American Candidate for President" storyline apparently has become shopworn to the media. The rallies? Same old, same old.

    I imagine that's going to be changing though with the GOP 527's now going with Rezko/Ayers. Perhaps that will be something new for them to discuss after the convention.


    Actually, (none / 0) (#82)
    by shoulin4 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:06:19 PM EST
    I don't think Obama wants people to see him as the "First African American Presumptive Nominee for President." If people thought that that was his true goal, to be the first black president, then he would've lost handily just like Jesse Jackson, because, guess what! Blacks aren't the majority. Other people vote too. And most other people are wary against someone advocating for "black America." Why do you think the painting the Obamas (especially Michelle) as radical black panthers works so well for his opponents?    

    Regardless, Obama can never even dream of being more exciting than the long public history of the Clintons. Never. He shouldn't even bother trying.

    And after the convention, they'll just discuss how many former Clinton supporters were at the John McCain's Happy Hour last night.


    problem (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ovah on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:35:37 PM EST

    yeah, that's it, Obama's boring. What an echo chamber this site has become.

    Dare I say that comment is worthy of firing (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by davnee on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:37:47 PM EST
    If, of course, we lived in a world where journalism counted for anything, and where people hired to provide the kind of data analysis that Todd is supposed to provide actually cared about doing their frakking jobs.

    Keithy will fire him (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:47:34 PM EST
    if he says anything OTHER than that.

    AJR: Cable news get stories from Cable news (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by catfish on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:07:30 PM EST
    There's a lengthy article on Cable News in this month's American Journalism Review.

    It describes one scene in which the assignment editor watches a split tic tac toe screen of all the cable news channels. What the AJR reported noted was missing: newspapers. They get their story ideas by watching each other.

    It's insanity.


    Thanks for the lead--here's the link--looks like (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:18:40 PM EST
    good lineup of articles.



    From the link.. (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Teresa on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:40:50 PM EST
    Their words are fine, it's the gestures and the body language that signal to her most ardent supporters that she's not over it.

    lol, he's a body language expert now. I remember early in the primary someone on Daily Kos claiming to be an expert in this area. It must have been Chuck!

    These MSNBC conversations (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by IzikLA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:46:52 PM EST
    Between Chuck Todd and Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are an absolute train wreck of Clinton obsession overflowing to the point of absurdity.  I am really almost embarrassed for them at this point.  It's laughable.

    As bad as CNN is (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by americanincanada on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:49:57 PM EST
    I don't think I could stomach MessNBC.

    At least Campbell is sticking up for Hillary and we get Carville and Begala. Carville is in rare form tonight once again.


    that was always the problem with that song (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:00:44 PM EST
    if you read the lyrics it actually IS about the person in question.

    derivations of the second person pronoun appear more than 30 times.  in every single line of the song.

    derivations of the first person pronoun appear 8 times.

    or if it's about the person singing the song then what comes across the most is that the person singing the song is still very much obsessed with the daily minutia of someone else's existence.  

    well.  that and those clouds in the coffee.


    That comment (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:01:30 PM EST
    Was not to be a reply.


    oh well.  I don't like Chuck Todd.


    It was good, though, what you said. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Lil on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:21:06 PM EST
    and I love that song. At least their taste in music is good.I hear Carly Simon is a good friend of the Clintons.  

    CNN wonders (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:50:40 PM EST
    whether Hillary Clinton has to apologize.

    Apologize for what?  Campaigning?  When you come into a convention with a characterization that deems you a vain "takes everything personally" witch who is trying to undermine a fellow Party member to run herself in 2012, out of a personal grudge, well, tell me who has to apologize.  

    I feel like Hillary enters the stage tonight with a sense of her value outside of the Presidency.  For some reason, when people elect a President, they are often unable to separate hero from president.  Signing in bills about taxation isn't particularly heroic.  And the job doesn't have to be heroic.  Though she isn't the presidential candidate, Hillary is still a hero for the audacity of her goals (from First Lady with a Mind and Degree, to Senator, to Presidential Candidate...that's a heckuva slate).  The striving is heroic.

    Outside of Obama, she is the most important person in the party right now.  I feel confident she will reflect the nature of her goals and striving with dignity, and help many Democrats out there see that all things considered, we still need to run this country, and we need someone who agrees with our mindset and won't make destructive decisions to do it.

    That's the kind of speech I hope she gives.  Especially since she like Obama knows what it's like to be a Rorschach test.

    And BTW, the people who think the convention is about her, and don't want to care, who cares about them?  Who cares what Chuck Todd thinks?  They don't connect with the history, so they don't see it.  Doesn't mean it isn't there.  What does Chuck Todd think about today being the anniversary of women's suffrage?  Is it too "divisive" to celebrate?  Todd can take his boobs and go home.

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:51:50 PM EST
    idiots like Chuck Todd will take responsiblity for an Obama loss in Nov. Man, they really, really want to make me pull the lever for McCain instead of leaving it blank. Do these dimwads realize that there is such a thing as voting against a candidate? Do they realize that they are encouraging people to actually vote AGAINST Obama with this garbage?

    I hate to admit but I'm getting pushed too (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by SoCalLiberal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:55:41 PM EST
    I've decided that there is no way I can vote for Obama.  I almost want McCain to win now but I really wonder if I can bring myself to bubble in the circle for him.  I mean, we are opposed on so many issues and his opposition to gay adoption is mind boggling.  

    What I am tired of hearing is "are you over it?".  It's very insulting and demeaning and ignores why many people are going to either not vote or vote for McCain.  When Howard Dean lost, I was upset with how things turned out but I got behind John Kerry 100% and was crushed when he lost.  I am not about devotion to any particular candidate or hung up on primaries.  


    Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by denise on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:18:43 PM EST
    They think this is all about not being able to accept that Clinton will not be nominated. That allows them to paint us as deranged, deluded, troublemaking, feminazi sore losers. But it's always been about Obama, not Clinton. The fact that we don't like or trust him is not as juicy a story, and the only way to spin it is to call us racists.

    denise- you all are right on track (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by kenosharick on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:51:31 PM EST
    A caller on C-SPAN this morning really got to me by insisting that we all "know Barack is the best candidate, by far, but will not vote for him because he is black." This is no way to unite a party.

    The racist theme has been repeated over and over (none / 0) (#91)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 12:02:43 AM EST
    again.  I frankly find it offensive.  I think Obama's playing of the race card will hurt him in the general even if it helped him win the most pledged delegates.  

    Here's two other points I'd like to make.

    1.  Telling us to "get over it" or asking "are you over it yet" is patronizing and not helping the cause.  

    2.  While many of us voted for Hillary, liked Hillary, even fell in love with Hillary, we are not cultishly devoted to her.  Just because she's voting for Obama doesn't mean we have to.

    I didn't (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:47:22 PM EST
    start out with a candidate really, except for Mark Warner who dropped out early. I've always been able to move on to the next candidate though my primary candidate usually wins the nomination. Obama really is a horrible general election candidate. There's just no other way to put it. The GOP is starting to dump his baggage out there and it's showing in the polls.

    I don't understand McCain's stance on gay adoption. He's been one of the most gay friendly Republicans out there (and I realize this isn't saying a whole lot)--against the gay marriage amendment. Many of his ads make him look like a Democrat and he doesn't even advertise the fact that he's a Republican. This is why I think he can win despite Bush.

    Obama's McClurkin tour really turned me off. What did you thin?


    Fox made it's name (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:52:25 PM EST
    Being the water carrier for the Republican's. I think the MSNBC strategy is they can mimic it with the Dem's. So far the ratings show it isn't working. Fox is actually increasing it's ratings total this political season. KO still only draws 1/2 of O'Reilley's numbers. And MSNBC is still buried at the bottom of the rating heap.

    I demand (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:55:44 PM EST
    that Hillary Clinton apologize to America by forcing the media to obsess over her.

    How can you blame 'em? (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:57:48 PM EST
    They haven't had this much fun since they discovered fire.

    Charles Barkley (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:00:13 PM EST
    Now there is a political thinker..." the Clinton personality a problem"  

    Takes one to know one (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:02:18 PM EST
    is the obvious schoolyard retort.

    Or ask how he's doing with his gambling problem? Bill Bennett is there, they could share experiences.


    Oh..he went on (none / 0) (#32)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:06:16 PM EST
    talking about running in Alabama as an Indie cause the parties are corrupt.  

    Oh - it must be naptime... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:06:49 PM EST
    Kathleen Sebelius is speaking.

    I swear I hear snoring...

    Unbelievable (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:07:35 PM EST
    She is really really terrible.

    Part of the reason I'm okay with (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by litigatormom on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:34:36 PM EST
    Joe Biden as the Veep nominee is because I was scared to death Obama would pick Sibellius. Listening to her is like taking two Ambien.

    This convention is boring-they use to be fun! (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by mogal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:09:00 PM EST
    It looks like a Republican Convention.

    Well, We All Know (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by The Maven on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:12:25 PM EST
    that in the minds of the traditional media, the only issues worthy of any mention are the ones they themselves have decided to talk about.  If the media is giving an issue big coverage, ipso facto, it must be important, and if the media pays it no attention, that's because it simply isn't worthy of mention.  Reasoning can't get any more circular than this.

    I know what the problem is - watching C-Span (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by catfish on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:15:33 PM EST
    and I can tell you, all of the speeches are flat. Boring. They should have let Charlie Rangel speak, the Democratic Mayors of America - where are they? They should be speaking.

    Sebelius spoke. Barely a blip on the applause meter.

    So MSNBC is getting cranky, they have to keep talking and nobody is giving them a story.

    Gergen just said (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by waldenpond on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:15:38 PM EST
    We don't know how the speeches are coordinated.  it's too early to know how it's gone. (uh duh)  (I'm not going to say it, in case anyone knows him, but I am thinking 'moron')  

    Commercials are on.  I'm walking over to the store to get some Great White beer... if I'm going to be watching nooz, I'm going to need it.

    After Hillary's speech tonight, if there is (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:23:03 PM EST
    a bounce in the polls, we'll all see more ugly demands on Hillary and Bill to get out there and do what they need to in order to make amends for all their sins.

    The reason democrats need the Clintons is because the Clintons are loved by far more people than they are despised. Honesty about that would serve the party, but not the media...they want the Republicans to win.


    i slightly disagree (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by dws3665 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:45:22 PM EST
    I don't think they want the Republicans to win. I think they want the Clintons to lose. Epically. Evidently "losing" the nomination was not enough for some of them.

    Do you know who owns the (none / 0) (#88)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:35:05 PM EST

    They are not democrats.


    i just have to say... (none / 0) (#83)
    by maladroit on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:09:08 PM EST
    I LOVE Great White!!! i'll be watching Hillary's speech tonight with one. It's surreal, having volunteered for her since last April when she came to Reno, then working for since last June, to now watch a scenario so different than what I'd imagined be playing out.

    That being said, perhaps this webcomic should change from Fox News to MSNBC...


    It's incredible (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:18:07 PM EST
    It's bad enough that the media has a very bad case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

    It's worse that they are actually proud of it.

    Anybody make videos? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:18:24 PM EST
    The background for all the speakers is chroma key  blue; meaning you could easily key out the blue background and replace it with anything you want.

    lol!~ you are so right! (none / 0) (#64)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:33:42 PM EST
    actually in some programs, you can key out any solid-ish background if you set it up right.  

    Ugh. . . (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Tzal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:40:06 PM EST
    Whatever side of the primary you were on, this whole fake story is exceedingly annoying and frustrating.

    Neither the Clinton side nor the Obama side can do anything without falling into the media's ready-made narratives. If the Clintons adorn themselves head to toe in Obama gear and chant "Yes we can" until election day, the media will accuse the Clintons of being fake because surely they cannot really support Obama. But anything short of this level of support is a sure sign of the Clinton's desire to see Obama lose.

    On the other hand, if Obama gives Bill and Hillary prime speaking slots, he is weak and capitulating. But if he fails to give in to every last one of the Clinton supporters demands, Obama is dissing the Clintons.

    I can't wait to see what pitfalls the media sets up for McCain at his convention. . .

    Ha Ha Ha (none / 0) (#81)
    by wasabi on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:58:45 PM EST
    I can't wait to see what pitfalls the media sets up for McCain at his convention. . .

    That is one funny line.  Oh maybe, they'll mention Ron Paul followed by alot of snickering.

    Will they reluctantly mention that he lived in a box for 5 years?  


    Press couldn't do it without help. (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by eleanora on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:47:03 PM EST
    I'm ready to scream right now. I did okay with my quest for unity yesterday, but I swear the a@!#$% articles on the news today are about to send me 'round the bend. Why don't the DNC and the Obama/Biden people realize that this kind of crap is just playing into the Republicans' hands? If DEMS would stop feeding the Anti-Clinton meme and start speaking out forcefully against it, they'd do the ticket a world of good.

    Clinton backers confused

    "DENVER - Already defeated and now confused, delegates supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton pleaded Tuesday to know whether they'll be allowed to cast roll call votes and demonstrate on the Democratic convention floor in her favor."

    A convention comeuppance for Bill Clinton
    "Bill Clinton was supposed to beam at the side of his wife at the Democratic convention as she was crowned their party's presidential nominee. Instead, he will have reason to wince as their upstart rival, Barack Obama, is coronated."

    Quote after quote from Democrats about how Clinton=EVIL. Are they out of their ever-flipping minds? How has my party come to this? You'd have to be crazy to think this is going to help anybody but John McCain.

    This is why I changed to Independent. I can't (none / 0) (#90)
    by hairspray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:44:42 PM EST
    stand the hypocrisy.

    Save your sanity - watch C-SPAN (4.66 / 3) (#21)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:55:08 PM EST
    Come to your own conclusions.  Feel better about not giving these toads any ratings.

    Joe Biden must be beside himself - no one's talking about him now, and unless he blows the roof off the Pepsi Center tomorrow night, they will just elbow him out of the way to talk some more about Bill's speech.

    Expectations for Biden to rip the throat out of the GOP are so high now, this can't possibly turn out well.

    Well, Bobo blathers, and Shields? Please, we more (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:21:00 PM EST
    and better Dems and more and better Dem analysts on the MCM!

    Q-Pac Poll (none / 0) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:45:53 PM EST
    Shows Obama losing ground in Florida and Ohio:

    Q-Pac Aug 26

    Who is so vain?

    I am Florida voter (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Nike on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:56:03 PM EST
    and I certainly heard his team say, "stay home, we don't need you."

    Gaffe alert: Whitaker says he's endorsing (none / 0) (#22)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:55:16 PM EST
    "Barack Obamas [plural] for the Presidency of the United States of America".

    As I've previously said: it's very telling how Obama supporters can't get his name right when they're talking him up.

    you've obviously never seen the michael keaton (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:02:50 PM EST
    movie, multiplicity.

    This is like them covering the Olympics (none / 0) (#31)
    by steviez314 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:04:56 PM EST
    and only talking about Tibet for 2 weeks.

    No, wait.  THAT might have been useful at least.

    Gee, I wish I could go back to (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by litigatormom on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:37:38 PM EST
    watching some underage Chinese gymnasts. It was more edifying.

    The signs are coordinated--Strong America on them (none / 0) (#56)
    by jawbone on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:24:31 PM EST
    Casey up now. Starting on how economy messed up by Bush/Cheney.

    4 more months not 4 more years... (none / 0) (#63)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:32:37 PM EST
    Michael Moore said that at the '04 convention. I hadn't heard it prior to then.

    Has it, in fact, been around for ages?

    I am livid (none / 0) (#85)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:25:42 PM EST
    about Chuck Todd/CNN and the entire crew at MSNBC.

    I am going to watch FOX, at least Karl Rove has a little class..... and tonight I wouldn't even consider voting for Obama.  I am so done.

    Did you hear they changed (none / 0) (#87)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:30:24 PM EST
    Mark Warner because they didn't want him to attack John McCain because they wanted to see if Hillary would do it?

    I hope that is not true because I will be even more livid.

    *Wolfson verified on Fox

    Also a plan to crash into the convention if Hillary Clinton does not get to hear very vote due her.

    via Fox