Quote Of The Day

MSNBC Head Phil Griffin:

Look, when Keith [Olbermann] anchors, he plays it straight down the line.

Bwahahahahaha! Good one Phil. Next you'll tell me he is "fair and balanced." Oh wait, how about this one - "Olbermann Reports, You Decide."

This is an Open Thread.

< A Historic Night | Ready >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Just Asking (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Athena on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:36:28 AM EST
    When will that cable cell stop televising Olbermann's therapy sessions and Matthews primal screams - and calling that "coverage?"

    Did you see Tweety crying last night (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by angie on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:46:32 AM EST
    after Biden's speech? I didn't see it, but my sister told me he did. Pure objectivity & professionalism there, you betcha.

    You know they keep (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:22:37 AM EST
    emphasizing we need a change - implying the old style Dems are thru - why not some fresh new opinion people.  I'd like to see Matthews for sure feel the pain -  maybe a smart stud.

    I read somewhere that Mitt Romney (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by cosbo on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:42:07 AM EST
    is now being protected by the SS.

    McCain's top reasons anyone?



    Colorado and Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:43:05 AM EST
    also Florida.

    Well. That's THAT then. (none / 0) (#9)
    by cosbo on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:49:49 AM EST
    Wonder what the VP debate will be like.

    I think (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:51:38 AM EST
    Romney is a very good debater myself. I thought he won every Republican debate.

    But the Media hated Mitt and probably still do.


    Matthews didn't (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by dws3665 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:30:45 AM EST
    He nearly had an accident rhapsodizing about the breadth of Mittens' shoulders and the squareness of his jaw.

    I think the tingle didn't stop at the leg on that occasion.


    thanks for the visual. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:32:28 AM EST
    He's going to have to watch himself (none / 0) (#18)
    by cosbo on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:55:38 AM EST
    with Biden. Still the fact that he's former governor from MA and is a moderate probably won't hurt McCain. I also read somewhere that Rove is aggressively pushing for McCain's VP to be Romney.

    the keep threatening to do it today (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:24:50 AM EST
    I dont think they will if its Romney.  but maybe.
    seems to me they would only do it today if it was someone who was going to grab some headlines.
    Romney wouldnt really do that.
    he is CW.

    In AP article today, McCain sd. (none / 0) (#158)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:42:49 PM EST
    he won't decide until he has a chance to discuss the issue with his wife when she returns from Georgia.  

    The media turned on Romney ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:39:30 AM EST
    because of all his disingenuous flip-flops.

    Had he run as he governed in Mass, he would have had an easier time with the media.

    But I wonder if one of the reasons to pick Romney could be to reach out to the Clinton voters who are considering McCain.

    Romney's healthcare initiative in Mass included mandates.  


    and (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:42:05 AM EST
    he was for abortion before he was against it.
    come to think of it maybe I am wrong about Romney.

    He was far more moderate when he ran in Mass (none / 0) (#82)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:46:28 AM EST
    He only evolved into THE conservative when running for the Republican nomination for President. he will be portrayed as a flip flopper.

    you know (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:52:32 AM EST
    the more I think about it the more I think he fits with the whole McCain thing.
    do a head fake to appeal to the wingnuts and expect people to remember the things you have stood for until you had to lick Limpbaughs boots.
    flip flop, yes. but a flip flop some voters may be able to live with and even relate to.

    Eh? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Landulph on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:58:05 AM EST
    COL and MICH I see, but how will Romney help in Florida?

    Cosbo! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:49:48 AM EST
    good to see you.  How are the boys?

    I'm good. The boys are getting BIG. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by cosbo on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:51:05 AM EST
    But they're still lovely except for the times I have to yell. :-).

    How are you?


    Fine - oi who has time to tell the truth. (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:54:54 AM EST
    an interesting election - take care.

    See you on the boards


    Is this what you heard? (none / 0) (#15)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:53:20 AM EST
    Nope. (none / 0) (#29)
    by cosbo on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:04:36 AM EST
    I don't read wonkette. I don't know. In a thread on one the blogs I scour here & there. Who knows if it's true. I heard Christine Todd Whitman name and also Meg Whitman also.

    Over at politico yesterday, they said McCain is notifying his pick today and appearing together tomorrow. We'll find out soon enough.


    At conservative blogs (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:18:22 AM EST
    They were hoping it wouldn't get leaked out today (for example, the SS, and others have to get ready for the nominee) because it would be bad form to rain on Obama's parade, and more importantly, the story would get lost with Obama's speech and would allow him the first opportunity (with a nationwide audience) to take a swipe.  If they can hold it in until tomorrow, McCain wins the news cycles and Obama's speech is forgotten after the morning talk shows.

    Bad form? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Xeno on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:39:47 AM EST
    Since when have the republicans ever cared about that?

    Fair and Accurate Analysis (none / 0) (#122)
    by JimWash08 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:37:34 AM EST
    As much as I hate both those men, I'd be very angry at McCain for 'raining' on Obama's big day.*

    I don't approve of Obama as a presidential nominee, but I can't fight the fact that we actually have our first African-American presidential nominee. At least a massive hole's been broken in that glass ceiling, though it remains to be shattered.

    *I do realize a leak would not be McCain's fault, but as with all things in this election, everything associated with a candidate can be, and is linked to the candidate eventually.


    I don't know if just notification (none / 0) (#155)
    by waldenpond on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:27:36 AM EST
    of McCain's VP pick will be enough to knock Obama out of the media.  Obama's speech will need to be critiqued and the over-the-top event is going to get attention.  No way that display is going to be ignored.

    McCain will need to have an announcement event (not too ostentatious) and then hit the media.  He's got to on all the Sunday shows etc or he will get lost in the Obama kerfluffle.  McCain isn't just fighting Obama, he's fighting the media.


    Also saved 2002 Winter Olypmics (none / 0) (#23)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:59:41 AM EST
    People are still in Olympic mood - this would be good press

    Makes (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:00:52 AM EST
    McCain look like the Maverick and moderate that he wants to be.

    Yes - but what about the (none / 0) (#30)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:05:14 AM EST
    Mormanism?  People seem to be uncomfortable with it.  

    After Rev. Wright (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:10:03 AM EST
    Mormonism seems mainstream.  I would forget about that factor.

    A need to think critically about Mitt. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Christy1947 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:44:08 AM EST
    1. He was long a venture capitalist, the kind with layoffs for companies being restructured and sold, in his past. And no telling what else. He will have to be vetted by the press since the assumption is that he will have to take over the job before the end of the term. And oh what may be found then.

    2. to big city folk who may not do church the way most Americans do, Mormonism is not 'no big deal' Especially with the conservative base. Think that Texas case and what happens if something else related to hit hits the presses.

    3. the equal access to marriage issue will make a large part of the base gag, and gag some more. Mitt put it in by executive order in MA.

    4. if the pitch is reliability, experience and trustworthiness, Mitt has a Nobel prize for flip flopping. I can just see the ads now, in Southern states congratulating Mitt for making equal marriage available, with clips.

    5. A contest for how many houses and how much privilege. Cred to the Wall Street crowd does not play on Main street.

    The republican problem is that we had a deep field of people who did appeal to our various bases with relatively few huge problems, remember the big line at the early debates with Gravel the only clear lemon? And Kuchinich a reputable dem but still a long shot, but the rest all in there until the voting started. They got Mitt and Huckabee and Rudi. :-)

    Well, those may be true, but... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:53:04 AM EST
    1. I think it's crude to say we all assume he will have to take over before the term will be over - McCain's mother is 95 and on the campaign trail.  Tacky and you have no way of knowing if that's true.

    2. While some folks may be concerned about the Mormonism, Obama has his own church issues that he doesn't want repeated. Secondly, conservatives must know they are going to have big losses in Congress and local elections, so they don't want a complete sweep.  They tend to fall in line better than Dems.

    3. See number 2.  Obama has also been light on GLBT issues.

    4. Really? You want to go there about flip-flopping?

    5. Obama also doesn't want to discuss houses.  His one salvo against McCain was a complete disaster, and he bought his own house with the help of a convicted felon.

    This is not true: (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:14:28 AM EST
    3.  the equal access to marriage issue will make a large part of the base gag, and gag some more. Mitt put it in by executive order in MA.

    Do some research.  The Mass. S.Ct. decided that gay marriage was constitutional.  Mitt fought allowing the decision to go into effect tooth and nail.  He had his Atty Gen. challenge implementation so many times that in the end his AG (also against gay marriage) told him he wouldn't even file one more appeal because there were no legal grounds for it.

    Then he supported the proponents of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, also tooth and nail.  And you better believe all Mitt's voguing on gay marriage was communicated to Republicans.

    I'm no fan of Romney, but quit with the 'truthiness'.


    6. His sons (none / 0) (#85)
    by abfabdem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:48:57 AM EST
    He is for the war but not one of his 5 able-bodied sons is serving.  Remember how they were lampooned about how they were "serving their country" by driving a bus through Iowa?

    Obama hasn't served. Has Biden? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:10:04 AM EST
    I see Biden's son is in Reserve or Guard - and the war, unfortunately, is now is "surge victory" mode.  I don't think this would be a problem.

    Son's (none / 0) (#115)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:26:25 AM EST
    With the recent new about Biden's son, I don't think the Dem's will want to go there!

    What news? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:38:37 AM EST
    Lobbyist (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:55:45 AM EST
    Probably wouldn't be a factor if Obama hadn't made it an issue throughout the primaries.

    Hope takes a Holiday! (none / 0) (#135)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:59:26 AM EST
    this is the problem with me - he's a politician - same as any and he skewered the Clintons as politicians.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#86)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:49:49 AM EST
    Mitt got a laugh out of me the other day when he was asked how many houses he owned and responded "One less than John Kerry".



    One less than John Kerry (none / 0) (#150)
    by RalphB on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:18:53 AM EST
    would be two less than Ted Kennedy.  I really don't think we ought to have the 'house' wars, since Obama bought his with the aid of a felon.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#159)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:45:43 PM EST
    Really stupid thing to make an issue out of - not to mention irrelevant to the real issues.

    Truthiness: Rezko was under investigation (none / 0) (#160)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:51:40 PM EST
    when his wife bought the lot adjoining the house the Obamas purchased. Now he is a convicted felon.

    Good information - (none / 0) (#94)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:53:57 AM EST
    A lot of people like Huckabee - I havne't paid attention to the Republicans much - does he shore up McCain's religious creds?  or am I missing something - On a purely talky basis - I like him.  But my judgment on men has really never been good.  But I know bad boys when I see them; that's not Huck.

    I've always thought Condi would be a good choice - but my friends throw me out of the room when I suggest same.  Two hawks?  Well, it is the Republican Party and they seem to have sold the surge works stuff.  ???


    my father's around McCain's age (none / 0) (#114)
    by kredwyn on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:25:18 AM EST
    I'm sure he'll be thrilled to know that you think he'll be pushing daisies soon.

    not in Colorado and Nevada (none / 0) (#35)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:10:56 AM EST
    Yes... (none / 0) (#110)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:17:26 AM EST
    ...because we're all Mormans here in Colorado.  Especially all those far right-wingers in Colorado Springs.  

    The (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:21:10 AM EST
    place the mormonism hurts is here in the south. But McCain has a large enough margin down here that Romney won't be enough of a drag to help Obama. Romney could also put some NE states into play and lock up the west for McCain. It seems that the McCain campaign may be a lot smarter about this kind of thing than Obama's.

    Romney would help (none / 0) (#65)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:33:44 AM EST
    in MI, CO, FL and in those Swing States where the Economy is a major, major concern.

    If he picks Romney, this race could be as good as over.


    I just cant see Romney (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:36:08 AM EST
    of course as we know I have been wrong before.
    I think he is going to make a bolder pick.
    if he picks Romney I think it will be a signal that they are not a sure about the outcome of the election as they might be.

    or they want to lock up (none / 0) (#83)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:47:28 AM EST
    certain States Obama may be focusing on (like MI or CO) and they know Romney could help them do that.

    It would be a game-changer if he chooses someone like Palin of Alaska or even one of the other women he has advising him (their names escape me now, sorry), but ... I don't know.

    If his Base is fairly locked up and he's making a run for women and independents, there would be no better way to inoculate Obama's historic candidacy (or, in effect, negate the votes of those who will support him entirely for that reason) than by offering them another, more experienced "first".


    "Obama's historic candidacy" (none / 0) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:55:32 AM EST
    has a downside.  this morning I heard twice, on two different Cable channels, the following (paraphrase)
    "if Obama loses does that make the US a racist contry?"
    this is not a good frame for Obama.

    Palin is under investigation (none / 0) (#103)
    by Xeno on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:09:21 AM EST
    She is accused of having fired the state's public safety director because he refused to fire he ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper. Apparently, Palin's husband and aides also made dozens of phone calls trying to get the ex-in-law fired as well. Of course she denies all wrongdoing, welcomes the investigation, yada-yada. But this will doubtless be enough to remove Palin from McCain's short list.

    The base isnt locked up (none / 0) (#113)
    by AlSmith on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:23:56 AM EST
    I have yet to talk to a republican that 'likes' McCain. He is their candidate but if there are McCain enthusiasts I havent talked to them.

    Kind of scary someone they dont like is doing that well against The One.

    The Pro-Choice trial balloon from last week was batted down. Since McCain is a one termer the choice of VP is critical- if the base doesnt like the person McCain is toast.

    I think Carly Fiorina is great, but if McCain picked her it blunts the experience attack on Obama. Doesnt make any sense to take away your best weapon.

    The Cantor boomlet I dont understand at all. Maybe its like the Oscars and its an honor just to be considered.


    perhaps I should say (none / 0) (#121)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:35:01 AM EST
    it's more locked up for McCain than Obama's Base is for him?

    Polling in the mid- to high-80s with your own Party is nothing to sneeze at, especially when your Dem Opponent is only polling in the low- to mid-70s with his Base.


    LOL... (none / 0) (#116)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:27:23 AM EST
    ...got to love you flatlanders who think you've got Colorado politics all figured out!

    I'm sorry (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:41:54 AM EST
    I never claimed to be an expert on CO politics.  I simply offered an opinion which is what this Forum is intended for, yes?

    I would appreciate hearing your views on CO politics and what picks McCain could make which you think could make a difference as well as how someone like Biden may or may not help Obama in CO.

    Instead of pointing and laughing at us Flatlanders (I'm in NYC, so does that count?), you could offer something a bit more substantial and informative than unnecessary derision and scorn.


    I sorry too... (1.00 / 1) (#131)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:55:15 AM EST
    ...because I've been over and over this too many times now and don't really feel like rehashing it yet again.

    Suffice to say that no matter who McCain picks it is not going to make that much of a difference one way or another.  Whether it is Romney.  Or Huckabee.  Or Palin.  They're all too far left for the hardcore Repubs and too far right for the indies.  

    BTW, pointing and laughing at flatlanders is one of our favorite pastimes.


    Pass me that shallow banner - (none / 0) (#62)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:30:43 AM EST
    He looks like a movie star president - Do you think he has executive abilities?  Remember Gen. Westmoreland?

    Naw, (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:38:58 AM EST
    he looks like Guy Smiley.

    Romney wasn't a very good governor. (none / 0) (#118)
    by Casey from MA on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:28:25 AM EST
    And he's the type of business man who goes out and decimates companies, increasing profits by layoffs and the like.  

    That's how it should happen (none / 0) (#130)
    by blogtopus on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:54:55 AM EST
    You take the next most powerful / popular candidate and make them your VP candidate.



    That's why (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by janarchy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:42:43 AM EST
    he was demanding (on mic last night) to have Mike Murphy's microphone turned off while Murphy was debating with Harold Ford?

    Pulling an O'Reilly and shutting off the mics of people you don't agree with is playing it straight?


    I don't watch him (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:45:55 AM EST
    but did he really do that?  How do Democrats justify watching that?

    Even if I were still his fan, I'd suddenly stop being so after such a thing.


    I normally don't watch (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by janarchy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:50:57 AM EST
    I gave it up in February. But I was channel surfing late last night and actually wanted to listen to Harold Ford. My mistake.

    Along with the Olbermann thing, the brownshirts, erm, Obamabots were behind them drowning out anything Murphy was trying to say and/or chanting "O-ba-ma!" non-stop.

    I was expecting a rousing chorus of "Tomorrow Belongs To Me" next.


    "Tomorrow Belongs To Me" (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by dutchfox on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:17:09 AM EST
    A wonderful allusion. Can we say Nuremberg party rally? Especially tonight, in that stadium: it's all staged. The whole "convention" has been staged.

    There are no coincidences in Demver.


    the whole spectacle (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:22:14 AM EST
    reminds me a little to much of "those" rallies.
    at least there are no towering banners with the possum seal on them.  yet.

    Why do you think (4.40 / 5) (#54)
    by janarchy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:28:07 AM EST
    I've been making the "Triumph of the Will" cracks? Maybe I should just have made reference to "The Producers". I hate getting anywhere near Godwin's Law references but the scary Obamabots (which is not to say All Obama Supporters) terrify me. They're like Scientologists, Football Hooligans, Brownshirts and the Brooks Brothers idiots from Florida 2000 all rolled into one. Just because they think their ideaology is on the Left doesn't mean they're any less thuggish.

    totally (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:29:19 AM EST
    what you said

    although (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:33:58 AM EST
    I do think Barakopolis is pretty damn funny.

    And - Obama may (none / 0) (#67)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:34:11 AM EST
    well turn out to be moderate or worse.  Disappointing for them!  

    at this point (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:38:30 AM EST
    afaiac the surprise would be if he doesnt turn out to be a MiddleMusher.  at best.  and a Lieberman Jr. more likely.
    that is the case when I told you so would be thin comfort.

    Was it really late? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:11:09 AM EST
    Because that's not helpful for Sen. Obama.  I didn't see it but sounds like the kind of thing that turns voters off.  

    Yeah, definitely late (none / 0) (#61)
    by janarchy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:30:11 AM EST
    I didnt know if it was a repeat from earlier or not, but it was definitely after midnight EST since I'd just watched Daily Show and colbert Report and was trying to see if there was anything else on.

    This is the same Phil Griffin who said (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:43:56 AM EST
    that non-Obama supporters will return to Olbermann because "they have no place else to go".

    Well I don't know where I can go, but I certainly know where both Keith and Phil can go!

    LOL!  These people are priceless.

    That IS priceless (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:28:57 AM EST
    He thinks it is a closed system - that there are a limited number of choices, and people have to pick one of them. Idiot.

    Even before 24-hour cable news (none / 0) (#147)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:15:52 AM EST
    there were other places to go, network wise.  Not many, and not that different, but the idea that MSNBC is the only option is delusional.

    I've switched to SpongeBob SquarePants (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Xeno on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:46:25 AM EST
    He's a lot more fun than those MSNBO boobs. Gets better ratings, too.

    Obama gets convention bounce! (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Josey on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:51:12 AM EST
    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows hints of a modest convention bounce building for Barack Obama. The Democrat gained a point from yesterday and now attracts 45% of the vote nationwide while John McCain earns 44%. When "leaners" are included, it's Obama 47% and McCain 47%.

    Can't judge the bounce till the weekend (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:52:31 AM EST
    I think it was snark (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by cmugirl on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:58:33 AM EST
    and the surge in the polls (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:40:19 AM EST
    Obama's now experiencing has nothing, nothing at all to do with Hillary's fantastic speech, alright?

    It's a delayed reaction to Michelle's speech and Obama's adorable kids.  America is falling in love with the Obamas.

    (The above was courtesy of an Obama lovin' friend of mine who emailed me this news earlier today and does not reflect my personal, rational, intelligent views in any way, shape or form)



    Surge? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ks on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:05:20 AM EST
    Thay call that a surge?   I guess that's not the surge I knew.  : )

    when the Kool-aid (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:14:27 AM EST
    wears off, they start grasping at straws for good news.

    And Obama having a day where he DOESN'T fall in the Polls is considered a "surge" to some.


    The family stuff is (none / 0) (#106)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:11:52 AM EST
    a plus -

    Runner up Quote (or concept) (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by janarchy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:57:02 AM EST
    Robert Gibbs (Sr. Obama Advisor) when asked about the Ocropolis by Joe Scarborough whipping out a picture of Dubya in front of his Grecian columns from 2004 (?) and blathering on about how if it was good enough for Dubya...

    I think in that spirit, Obama should come out wearing a flight suit too.

    So, Obama is doing the same as GWB (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by angie on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:59:09 AM EST
    somehow that doesn't make me feel any better.

    Ya think? (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by janarchy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:02:07 AM EST
    You'd think someone might have considered that doing stuff the way Dubya did was a bad thing...apparently not.

    He thinks that is a helpful (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:00:58 AM EST
    comparison?  I must have a tin ear lately.

    It seemed so. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by janarchy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:03:07 AM EST
    He was trying to be facetious but I'm not sure what the point was given that Obama's set is bigger and stupider than Dubya's.

    Gibbs definitely seemed like a big smug schmuck.


    When he comes on MSNBC - (none / 0) (#40)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:18:17 AM EST
    they go into cheerleader mode - maybe he's beginning to believe that press.

    Hey (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:04:05 AM EST
    just reaffirms my belief that they are rerunning Bush's campaign all the way to the evangelical pandering.

    Including the VP pick (none / 0) (#98)
    by abfabdem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:56:56 AM EST
     . . .a lightweight at the top of the ticket picks an experienced pol in the VP spot to mentor him and provide the foreign policy knowledge he does not have.  

    Fortunately, Biden is no... (none / 0) (#132)
    by santarita on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:55:22 AM EST

    So he's....O'Same? (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:23:52 AM EST
    It was hard to tell (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by janarchy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:37:28 AM EST
    given that the photo reference he had was on his Blackberry/PDA and the camera could only zoom in so far and I think the screen on the thing went black after a few minutes. It was just...absurd.

    According to someone on MSNBC, the actual meaning of the set seems to be that of the steps in front of the Lincoln Memorial given that the "I have a dream" speech was given...on the steps in front fo the Lincoln Memorial.

    So now Obama is merging himself with:


    Even if he had an actual civil rights background to fall back upon, I'd find the pretence a little offensive. The word poseur comes to mind.

    Seriously, what are these people thinking? Has no one have any sense at all?


    Next up... (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by kredwyn on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:51:22 AM EST
    Democratic arguments for the Unitary Executive theory complete with the caveat, "If it was good enough for George, it's good enough for Obama."

    has anyone found any good analysis (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:08:08 AM EST
    We flipped back and forth from cnn, msnbc and fox to see how the speeches were analyzed and each time it was as if there were 3 different speeches.  It is a shame what has become of MSNBC, but i guess ratings = money and Fox has been so dominant that MSNBC thinks that journalism and analysis should be compromised for whatever the hell it is they are selling.  I didn't try PBS as navigating 3 channels was difficult and of course you miss the other speeches in between.  Is there anyone more powerful with a message than Bill Clinton?????

    Michelle Martin on BET (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:24:38 AM EST
    looked good last night.  I remember her from PBS.  She seemed an objective person - though it was just the 10 minutes or so.

    thanks (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:28:58 AM EST
    i will record BET to watch their coverage as well.

    MSNBC needs to get their story (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:09:54 AM EST
    straight.  Last weekend when Gov Rendell ripped into MSNBC for their Obama worship during the primaries, Brokaw defended MSNBC by saying something along the lines of Matthews and Olbermann are not the only people at MSNBC and also that they are political commenters not journalists.  

    So, BTD has been right to question then why MSNBC has been letting their "commenters" lead their coverage of the primaries and now the conventions.  Brokaw implied that MSNBC does have legit journalists on staff.  Although, he didn't name them.  So, why aren't those legit journalists the ones leading the coverage of actual news events?

    I'm willing to grant you that "Hardball" and "Countdown" are not to be considered "News" programs and could rightly be categorized as Talk/Opinon shows.  But, then, please name me any actual "News" program that exists on MSNBC.  Tell me they aren't talking about those "predator" & "jailhouse" programs that run constantly.  They can't be referring to Andrea Mitchell who tends to report campaign talking points instead of actually doing any real investigative work of her own to verify the validity of any of those talking points.

    Apparently Phil Griffin wants us to believe that Olbermann is a "switch hitter" who can alternate between serious journalist and biased bloviator when the occaision calls for it.  I'm not convinced.

    Let's see, serious journalists... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:18:41 AM EST
    um...Andrea Mitchell?

    Do I really even need to add the snark tag?


    they can't be referring to (none / 0) (#48)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:23:33 AM EST
    David Gregory, who "used" to be an actual journalist, when not dancing with Rove, but now is also the host of another MSNBC talk/opinion show.  Or, maybe Olbermann taught him to master the art of the switch hitter too.

    um " switch hitter"? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:48:08 AM EST
    So...which "team" does KO play on?

    Might want to try another, less loaded phrase.


    since Keith is a former (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:11:15 AM EST
    sports news reader from ESPN, I would guess that "switch hitter" as a standard baseball term should not be considered a "loaded" phrase.  And, quite honestly, I've had enough of normal everyday phrases being considered "loaded" anyway.

    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:28:00 AM EST
    I'd love to be able to use "fairy tale" without having Michelle Obama come knocking on my door.

    why.... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:52:21 AM EST
    How arrogant of you.    LOL

    Everytime someone from MSNBC (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:15:40 AM EST
    has to defend MSNBC their suckiness is just reinforced.  They are settling into their role as a laughingstock quite nicely.

    If Chris Matthews and Olbermann had just stayed in their political shout show spots, this wouldn't be a problem.  I still don't really understand why Matthews and Olbermann have been allowed to take over the network, and they didn't bother hiring other people who are seen as objective.  CNN's analysts are much easier to tell apart from their journalists (Blitzer, Anderson).  

    Having Olbermann anchor MSNBC coverage is like having Dobbs anchor CNN coverage.  It's crazy.

    It the equivalent (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:21:48 AM EST
    of O'Reilly and Hannity anchoring coverage.

    This is a good quote too: (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:19:07 AM EST
    "The situation at our channel is about to blow up," a high-ranking MSNBC journalist told Politico on Wednesday.


    Not a moment too soon (5.00 / 9) (#52)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:26:25 AM EST
    I'm sure it was the loss of my viewership that turned the tide ;-)

    Watch them try to steal Donna Brazile (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:29:20 AM EST
    from CNN as a palliative.

    I Say, "Good Riddance" (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by JimWash08 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:18:25 AM EST
    And in the process, MSNBC should STEAL those god-awful 'commentators,' Jack Cafferty, Carl Bernstein and Roland Martin too.

    Only then would my once-favorite cable news channel be back to being my favorite.

    Speaking for me only. Heh.


    Oh god yes. (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:34:07 AM EST
    Put them all on one network.

    The article referred to (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:28:36 AM EST
    Olbermann as a "scourge of the right".

    No, instead, Olbermann is the "scourge" of anyone with a sense of fairness.  


    Assuming Obama is elected, what ... (none / 0) (#137)
    by santarita on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:05:15 AM EST
    exactly will Olbermann's routine be?  He won't have the Republicans or the Clintons around to attack.  The same goes for most of the talk show hosts on progressive radio.  They've built up an audience because they have attacked the people in power who are Republicans.  As Rumsfeld would say, it's been a target-rich environment for them.  But what happens if the people in power are the same people that these talk show hosts have fawned over for the last year?

    Thanks BTD (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by TheRizzo on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:37:43 AM EST
    That was a good laugh and put a smile on my face when I needed it today!   This guy is off his rocker if he believes KO plays it straight.

    Don't under estimate the ticket (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:42:50 AM EST
    I hope the Dem's don't under estimate a McCain/Romney ticket. I think the two of them could bring a lot of disenfranchised Republican's back to the fold. The two of them are much more representative of the Rep party before the religous right took control.

    Yep. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:53:13 AM EST
    If the base is locked up, Romney can bring a lot to the ticket. He's better on healthcare than either Obama or Biden for those voters who have that issue as a priority.

    good catch (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:59:38 AM EST
    I hadn't even thought of the health care angle and the Republicans have John Kerry's quote that Hillary's health care plans will be DOA in an Obama Administration.

    I would worry much less (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:56:01 AM EST
    about the disenfranchised Republicans as a strong Majority -- 85%, 87%? -- support McCain already.  

    I would worry more about those independents and disenfranchised Democrats who may worry, in this time of very real economic uncertainty, about the perceived lack of economic strength on the Dem Ticket and suspect McCain-Romney would be a safer bet.


    Also shows their utlimate practicality (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:58:44 AM EST
    in nominating the people most electable, no matter how much or little they like them, or the Pres and VP like one another.

    I hope no one is underestimating this.


    The saddest (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:50:09 AM EST
    thing to me about this upcoming election is what has happened with my husband. He was a Republican, even a Clinton hating Republican, who I lovingly worked my political magic on for years and finally got him to vote for Kerry in 2004. He came to realize how bad the GOP is. That being said, he decided that the Clinton years were pretty fantastic compared to W. Now, we have a candidate who literally spent months trashing the Clinton years and my husband is WTF? I can't vote for a candidate who thinks that. So, while he still believes that the GOP is awful, he's also decided that he can't vote for Obama either due to his stances. He'll be voting for Bob Barr. Moral of the story: There are consequences to the rank behavior you practice in a primary.

    Good on you! (none / 0) (#119)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:32:51 AM EST
    Too bad that the Clintons had to walk around with knives between their shoulder blades for months.

    Obama got what he wanted.  Now we see if he bit off more than he can chew.


    This morning I was reading in the paper that the (5.00 / 7) (#89)
    by FLVoter on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:52:03 AM EST
    local food banks are having trouble staying stocked.  More and more families need the local food banks to keep from going hungry. There are too many people that are on the verge of losing their homes, too many layoffs, and if you are lucky enough to get a new job, it doesn't pay half of the what your old job did. So many people can't make ends meet.  IMO it is wrong for the Dems to have a special event where so much lavishness is showered on the Dem Nominee. The party of the working class appears to be turning a blind eye to the struggles of the rapidly disappearing middle class and the growing working poor. There was no need for the Greek Temple or Invesco Field.  This sends the wrong message. You can celebrate the Dem Nominee without all the decadence.

    I agree (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:56:08 AM EST
    100%. It's kind of hard to make an economic appeal, well, Obama hasn't been making it anyway, when you have a nominee who wants all the glitz and glory of the hollywood elite.

    He's like the (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:49:55 AM EST
    Imelda Marcos of flashy campaigning.

    When before in history has a candidate gotten a private jet to taxi him all over the world, put on a beer, brat and band display for 200,000 foreigners, and all this flash? Presidents of our democracy don't even do that.

    And, on a daily basis, he is asking hard working Americans to dig a bit deeper and send another $150. That is so out of touch.


    To me the narrative coming out of the Dem (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by FLVoter on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:24:54 AM EST
    Convention will be "Obama is fiddling while Rome is burning."  How did the party allow itself to  become so out of touch with the struggles of the American People?

    Thank you - I feel the same (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Xanthe on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:56:14 AM EST
    way - it would have shown a solidarity with the working class.  

    I have friends/acquaintances at the U of C who support Obama and talk to their friends - they are clueless and they make good $$ between two professional partners.  Fine, that's fine.  But they don't understand.  They went from several years of school to good jobs and only a few had to take loans.  Small sampling I know --- but tenured academics do.not.get.it. And - I hear "but the Obamas had to take out loans to go to loan school."  So?  What's your point?  

     Why not send a large donation to a food center from the campaign - can they do that?  and skip the frills - Remember how steamed we were at the Republican convention during the war.  

    The resale shop where I buy my clothes is packed with people - packed.  and a real worry - the anchor store on State Street here in Chicago is usually empty.  Those people need the jobs - and the state/city needs those tax dollars.  Not good.


    yep, (none / 0) (#107)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:13:44 AM EST
    this brings to mind the dems comaplaints about the Reagans and things link the spending excesses of Nancy's "new china"....

    I firmly believe (5.00 / 9) (#90)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:52:03 AM EST
    that whenever someone changes the channel and refuses to watch MSNBC or Olbermann, an Angel gets it's wings.

    Or, at least several brain cells ... (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by santarita on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:07:30 AM EST
    are saved.

    I see red when I think (5.00 / 6) (#109)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:15:35 AM EST
    of Olberman, Matthews, Maddow and Shuster.

    Normally I am not a vindictive person.....I could not stand W, but never wished him personal ill will.
    It's not who I am.
    But MSNBC had brought out the worst in me. I wish that MSNBC the network would derail and crash and burn and Olberman, Matthews, Maddow and Shuster were jobless.  I do.  I cannot stand the thought of people who have been as hateful, as sexist, as disgustingly in the bag of ANY politician, especialy while  pretending to be "left" or centrist.  I never got as angry with FOX because that is what the right does...propaganda. I have known this since I was a teenager over four decades ago.  It is who they are and why I was always proud to be a liberal thinking person.  I never thought the left was perfect, but I never thought they would turn into a mirror image of the right, propagandizing hate toward women, toward the Clintons just 'cuz.  

    I understand MSNBC likes to claim these people are down the center.  But these people are auditioning to become parts of an administration and they believe by spewing hate qualifies them and impresses the audience.  Sadly it does impress some.  Go to certain blogs and you see they revel in  as well as join in the hate mongering of the press.....

    Bill and Hillary  both have proven over and over and over and over and over they are good decent human beings willing to work for the betterment of the lives of others.  They proved it in WHAT THEY DID; they prove it by putting up with the HATE machine of the media that was aided and abetted by their own party.  The fact that both of them have put aside their own hurt and rose above the chatterers is not being ignored by true liberals.

    But have no illusions. Some of us will forever understand what a**holes like Olberman, Maddow and Matthews have done.  

    Who will be Obama's Press Secretary? (none / 0) (#144)
    by santarita on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:14:14 AM EST
    Maybe the MSNBC team is auditioning for that role.

    I am betting Olberman (none / 0) (#148)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:16:53 AM EST
    and Maddow are both going for it...

    My Money is On Maddow (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by santarita on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:59:04 AM EST
    Olbermann is too full of himself and will alienate the press.  Maddow is just happy to have a full time job and she'll say anything that they want her to say.

    MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by onlyme on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:06:25 AM EST
    is blatant in their bias. Fox is more subtle. Fox isn't stupid enough to have O'Reilly co-anchoring the news. And at least Fox has spokespeople of both the right and the left debating with each other. Olbermann has only sycophants as guests. He even posts diaries at DailyKos and the posters there bash his co-workers.

    It appears that msnbc is imploding. Lots of infighting. The kids have taken over the daycare facility:


    Like so many other (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:06:47 AM EST
    nuprogressives or whatever else you are calling yourselves, you see no problem with the sexism of KO and Matthews and Shuster because "oh well, they're liberals so it's OK."

    You say this seems like a "conservative" blog?  Why?  Because people here refuse to march in lockstep with a particular viewpoint.  Since when has liberal thinking become the same as "fall in line", follow the media leaders?   Liberals think FOR THEMSELVES.  We do not drink the kool aid of ANYONE let alone someone like KO.  Give me a break.  This man has spewed LIES and sexism.  Matthews has been doing it for over nine years....he spun the lies against Al Gore.  MSNBC has given plenty of airtime to people like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingram.  Good old KO dated Laura Ingram.......he admitted.  
    KO is about a progressive as is the rest of the jerks at MSNBC and the blogs run by former right wingers.  I love it...Reagan loving, Clinton hating, former republicans like Huffington and Kos suddenly "see the light" and turn left and they are followed as if they are icons of liberalism.
    There are people that were trashing the Clintons in the 90s and turn on a dime in their political views and people like you think their words are gospel.

    People here don't believe in group think.  If you find that to be conservative, you may need to do some research.

    Capt. (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Bluesage on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:20:27 AM EST
    They would not dare interrupt Obama's "All Hail Caesar" moment, would they?  

    I think they might (none / 0) (#152)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:21:32 AM EST
    How Bout This One (none / 0) (#16)
    by flashman on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:54:41 AM EST
    Olberman: The Know Spin Zone!

    Kethies Playhouse (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:16:11 AM EST
    with Jombie Todd, Miss Yvonne Maddow and Cowboy Eugene.

    This is hilarious! (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by flashman on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:39:41 AM EST
    Watch what happens when Olberman tried to introduce Congerssman Hoyer.  What a couple of children Link :)

    wow (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:46:02 AM EST
    sibling rivalry much?
    and whats with the adapted Possum Seal on the front of the desk.  I have not seem any MSNBC coverage of this convention.
    thats funny.  I havent seen that "logo" anywhere else.

    MSNBC prez defends convention team (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:05:24 AM EST
    that headline tells you if not just us doesnt it.

    I haven't watched (none / 0) (#125)
    by Bluesage on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:47:46 AM EST
    MSNBC in many months until the other night after Hillary's speech and I tuned in to see what they were saying.  They were dumbstruck deer in the headlights.  You could tell they were not appreciating that she made a hell of a speech but they also couldn't slam it. Olberman was hilarious.  I won't be going back.  Olberman, Tweety, Maddow, Gene Robinson, Shuster, all of them, are just a different version of Faux News.  I left that channel when I saw Keith literally turning into O'Reilly right before my eyes.  

    Whenever I think of Romney I always think of him strapping his dog to the top of the family car and taking off on vacation.  What a heartless putz.  

    I swore off MSNBC weeks ago Blue (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:51:16 AM EST
    I like my teevee to much.
    and you know what?  I am not one bit less well informed.

    Capt - LOL (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Bluesage on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:12:20 AM EST
    I know what you mean. I've had to be very careful with my viewing of this convention.  Those "brick through the TV" people keep popping up and I have to mute or change the channel.  Pelosi, Brazile and Clyburn are three that come to mind.  And, of course, anyone on MSNBC and most of CNN.  I've just decided to stick to C-Span.  That seems safer for my tv's.  

    And, from what generally is shared here (none / 0) (#142)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:08:50 AM EST
    about MSNBC is stuff that we can go a life-time never needing to hear.

    I did the same (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:14:16 AM EST
    Hadn't watched MSNBC in months and months.  But I was honestly curious to see how they dealt with Hillary's amazing speech.  It was sad to watch Olberman and Maddow choke on even giving a tiny compliment.  Never thought I could despise these two more than I did Matthews but I do.  At least I have known what Matthews is since 1999.  
    Olberman and Maddows pretend to be big anti-war liberals (while happily working for the biggest defense contractor in the world, GE); the pretend to be fair while tolerating and contributing to sexist agendas; they pretend that they don't get talking points when they have both used the spin of "using Bill's out of context words to imply he is a racist" when it was unfair, and untrue.

    Last night Maddow could not even pretend.  While Bill's standing ovation was barely acknowledged, Maddow was jumping in to pretend Bill never took the stage and tell us how wonderful Kerry and Biden were.

    What a tool she has become.


    Video of the inside of Invesco (none / 0) (#126)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 10:48:22 AM EST
    Interesting view - walks on the stage too.

    I didn't realize the media talking heads would be in little booths right on the field.

    I nominate SeeSwann for a major (none / 0) (#161)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 01:11:11 PM EST
    media on camera position.  Very amusing fellow.  

    PLEASE STOP YELLING! (none / 0) (#136)
    by DFLer on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:01:25 AM EST

    from Drudge (none / 0) (#141)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:07:49 AM EST

    get the split screens ready

    The same Drudge... (none / 0) (#149)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:18:52 AM EST
    ...that was oh so accurate in calling who the Democratic VP choice was going to be?  That Drudge?

    the very one (none / 0) (#154)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 11:25:00 AM EST
    for what its worth HuffPo says the opposite:

    McCain On VP: I Haven't Decided Yet

    it will be interesting to see who is right.
    personally I always thought announcing today was a little below the belt.  I was surprised they would even talk about it.
    but, also for what its worth, Drudge is hardly the only place its been reported he would do this today.


    I love KO (none / 0) (#162)
    by polisiasa on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 04:00:41 PM EST
    I'm not the least concerned have a liberal mouthing off for democrats. For so long we have had faux news do the same and the liberals have taken the high road. Being nice and playing by the rules is wimpy.

    I will agree that msnbc was biased towards Obama, but if we have a Sean Hannity why not alittle of KO to balance it out.

    Analysis Here as Good as TV (none / 0) (#163)
    by WakeLtd on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 06:18:54 PM EST
    The fact is most commenters at this site and most other political blogs - of whatever political line - probably provide better analysis of the candidates and their speeches than any of these over-paid talking heads. Even when we are bone-headed - and it does happen,now and then - there is a level of political "memory",  contextualization, and discourse of ideas that one is not likely to find on the TV media. Here, the commenters are not really the story, their words are. No one on TV has ever been able to change my mind, for example, but a well-written comment can give me that "Ah!" moment, when I might realize there was more (or less)to a speech than I grasped at first. I'm not saying commenters are any more "objective" because I think that is a sort of myth, but they generally at least make their bias very clear.