More On Olbermann And NBC

Sorry to keep harping on this but it bothers me when even the usually clear eyed Glenn Greenwald gets into the Olbermann is God act. Greenwald writes:

The irrefutable fact is that nothing attracts ratings for MSNBC -- and nothing has attracted ratings in the entire history of that channel -- the way that Olbermann does. Yet here is MSNBC removing him from the anchor position . . . That is extraordinary for a media company to publicly embarrass, diminish and tarnish its own principal asset.

It is extraordinary . . . and RIGHT! Here's why, in Glenn's own words:

Olbermann's role as anchor somehow destroys the journalistic brand of both MSNBC and NBC, while Fox News continues to be deemed a legitimate news outlet by our political and media establishment. Fox does this despite (more accurately: due to) its employing Brit Hume as its main anchor -- someone who is every bit as partisan and ideological as Keith Olbermannn is (at least), who regularly spews the nastiest and most vicious right-wing talking points, yet because he's not a liberal, is deemed to be a legitimate news anchor.

(Emphasis supplied.) There it is. Greenwald accepts that Olbermann is a partisan hack in the style of Fox News but thinks that should be embraced because, get this, Fox News and Brit Hume are deemed a "legitimate" news outlet and new anchor. Deemed by whom? Certainly not by me and I assume certainly not by Greenwald. Hume is partisan hackery personified. Fox is a total partisan hack outfit. A real news organization would never have Hume anchor anything. But we all know Fox is not a real news organization don't we? Greenwald cites the right wing hack Howie "the Shill" Kurtz for this proposition. But we all know Kurtz himself is a right wing hack. What credibility does he have?

Is the principle now that our hacks should be embraced? And of course, Olbermann was not every Dems hack during the primaries. He was basically a Clinton hater during the primaries. Should Clinton supporters be sad that Olbermann is out as lead anchor at MSNBC?

But forget that - the bottom line is partisan hackery masquerading as journalism should be denounced wherever we see it. I can not for the life of me understand the principle Greenwald is supposed to be defending here? This is precisely what has gone wrong with the Left blogs.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< NBC Kow Tows To Journalistic Standards | Wolfson: Go After McCain-Bush >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    They all want to forget what was said (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:33:31 AM EST
    during the primaries. Atrios is up to it too.

    Let me add that Greenwald's Update (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:45:07 AM EST
    is also troubling:

    Throughout the primary season, Clinton supporters were furious at what they endlessly complained was MSBNC's biased coverage in favor of Obama and, more so, its intensely hostile coverage of Hillary Clinton. Whatever one's views on the primary war were, there is no question that Olbermann and Matthews in particular were extremely hostile to Clinton and supportive of Obama. But MSNBC executives ignored those complaints, even derided and mocked them, with MSNBC executive Phil Griffin belittling angry Clinton supporters in The New Yorker as nothing more than abused, disillusioned girlfriends with nowhere else to go

    Here is what's troubling - first, Greenwald certainly was not outraged by Griffin's response in real time. That bothers me a lot. Second, this hardly excuses Olbermann's hackery nor does it make NBC's decision now wrong. Indeed, it was long past due that Olbermann be removed from anchoring duties.

    I suspect NBC's reaction (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by BrianJ on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:54:07 AM EST
    Is because these complaints are cumulative.  If MSNBC wants to make Olbermann the mainstay of their lineup, they're giving up any possiblity of getting viewers from 3/4 of the potential audience-  the half that support Republicans and half of the Democratic half.  That's bad corporate strategy.

    I guess he's going for ... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:01:33 AM EST
    a consistency argument.  NBC was okay about with MSNBC's anti-Hillary coverage, so they should be okay about anti-McCain coverage.

    Not much of an argument though.


    That's most defenitely not the argument. (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:58:29 AM EST
    The arguement is this:

    When it was Democrat vs Democrat, NBC vociferously defended the behavior of a biased anchor, refusing to capitulate to the attacks of a democrat. Why? because they hate Clinton and have long hated Clinton and she's a democrat so that hate is "legitimate." Now the left blogs went right along with this because they were in the tank for Obama. That's on them. They should have fought for both candidates. Now we suffer Bohlert's revenge.

    Part of that revenge is the loss of the crediblity of Greenwald (in certain people's eyes) because of that lack of defense of Clinton in the primary. Nevertheless his primary point is still coherent and legitimate in my view. His central point is that now when it is Democrat vs Republican, not only does NBC not offer up a defense it rolls right over to preserve it's status as a "legitimate" "news" vendor. In short the message is: attacking democrats is FINE (especially Clinton/Gore/Clinton). Attacking Republicans diqualifies you from being a "legitimate news purveyor."

    Now BTD suggest in his response to Greenwald in another comment that the reasons for this change are irrelevant, what is important is that journalism was the victor here.

    I reject the argument that the reasons for this change are not important. That is an ends justify the means argument. In this case the end is getting rid of Tweety and Olberman as anchors and the means is Republican Mau-Mauing of the media. However, this ignores the true end of the power establishment here. Olberman and Tweety were NOT eliminated because they are hacks. They were eliminated because they are

    left wing

    This is considered OK because true journalism is more important than hackery. But I reject that what we have outside of our most vociferous hack propogandists is journalism. Most anchors are NOT journalists. They are ring masters of our reality generating narratives.

    There are only two victors here. Republicans who in yet another Mau-Mauing victory will have another "legitimate" news anchor who will push "centrist" "mainstream" narratives, and people who reserve a special hatred for the "liberal" Tweety, and Olberman for their treatment of Clinton in the primary.  


    You've got that right (none / 0) (#56)
    by BernieO on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:42:53 AM EST
    And from what I have seen, Brit Hume - whom I despise for his condescending, sneering attitude towards Democrats - has actually seemed more balanced that Olberman, which is truly bizarre.

    if he were on top (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:49:14 AM EST
    MSNBC does not make this decision.  His ratings may be impressive but they are still 3rd.  Most democrats don't like O'Reilly because of his lack of objectivity, those same non hypocritical democrats feel the same about KO.

    KO is schtick and as long as it is labeled schtick and sold as schtick I think MSNBC should keep it on the air, but to allow him to be portrayed as a serious news professional goes to the argument that MSNBC is just as ridiculous as FOX.  They are chasing ratings and were thinking that KO would be a hell of a lot closer to BO by now based on attitudes of the country and the swing voters.  They thought that many of the BO supporters in the middle would move to KO because of their dissatisfaction of where the US is and how O spins it.  

    Truth is, KO is not entertaining, is biased, is pompous and when HRC went on his show he did not confront her with the venom he was spewing about her during the primary which ultimately makes him a dope.  

    the problem, i fear, (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by cpinva on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:52:05 AM EST
    is that all the boys & girls of the MSM have figured out that the way to riches lies in being a hack, period. their work is, at best, dismal, but as long as they can generate a response, they know they can get on a tv talk show, where the big bucks are.

    unless you gut the entire pipeline, and start from scratch, you just can't get away from this.

    Right (none / 0) (#13)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:59:41 AM EST
    Repeating my comment from ... (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:55:13 AM EST
    an earlier thread, because I don't think I can say it better.  And some might have missed it:

    Progressives are best served by factual reporting.

    We don't need hacks, because the facts generally support our positions.

    It's the Republicans that need hacks.

    Yup - we should be encouraging (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:11:49 AM EST
    fact based journalism, and fewer opinion shows of any stripe.

    Interesting that many people watch History Channel documentaries and other documentaries, but when it comes to current events, all we get is hackery.


    AMEN!! (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by BernieO on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:43:38 AM EST
    Why do these people (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by lilburro on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:57:14 AM EST
    act as if they didn't see the absurd coverage of the conventions?  Who in their right mind would watch Matthews and Olbermann bicker, and watch Olbermann diss Scarborough - "Jesus Joe, why don't you get a shovel" - and think, gee, this is professional.  Let's do this once more.  

    Olbermann only has himself to blame.  MSNBC is hardly a network I respect, but they were incredibly silly and now are finally paying the price.

    OMG (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by suki on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:00:26 AM EST
    Is Greenwald arguing that because Fox is a complete joke of a news outlet we should have another?
    Lord, I never thought I'd see the day.
    I'm going outdoors for some sunshine and sanity.

    That is precisely (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:04:00 AM EST
    what he is arguing.

    Lying, blind or deeply confused (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by GlennGreenwald on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:08:20 AM EST
    That is precisely what he is arguing.

    I'm arguing nothing of the kind.  See below.


    What ARE you arguing then? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:14:06 AM EST
    it's not like they are FIRING (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:01:29 AM EST
    Olberman.  Countdown will still be on the air 5 nights a week.  Olberman wil still appear on all of MSNBC's political coverage as an analyst.  He just won't be sitting at the anchor desk.  But, he will still be bloviating as usual and evenryone who wants to will still be able to listen to him rant.

    MSNBC is shutting him up at all.  They are just going to stop buying into Keith's theory that he is Edward R Murrow reincarnated.  That's all.

    Exactly ... (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:03:00 AM EST
    he's not even being forced off the election coverage.

    He'll just be sitting in a different chair.


    Which most viewers (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by BernieO on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:08:15 PM EST
    will not see as being any different. So this is just for show and not a serious effort to clean up their act. That won't happen until the public really starts complaining to Griffin and Capus.

    They are accepting that he is O'Reilly (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:06:38 AM EST
    for Obama.

    Completely, totally missed the point (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by GlennGreenwald on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:07:36 AM EST
    MSNBC didn't demote Olbermann because he's biased or because he's a hack.  If that had been what bothered them, then -- as I noted in the Update -- they would have demoted him during the primary, when he was very bit as hackish and partisan - more so.  But they ignored (and even mocked) complaints from Clinton supporters.

    They demoted him because the Right demanded that they do so, because they are petrified of angering the Right, while they couldn't care less about complaints from the Left.  You're so drowning in your hatred for Keith Olbermann that you can't see that point, and are just so happy to see him demoted that you don't care about the underlying reasons.  That's shallow and petty.

    Double standards matter.  If the police in a city are giving speeding tickets only to black residents, but not white residents, I suppose you're going to defend that behavior ("hey, the ones being ticketed are speeding") and criticize those who object on the ground that they're "defending speeders."  It may be true that those who are being ticketed deserve it because they're speeding, but selective enforcement is still a huge problem.

    Same here.  Olbermann may be biased and hackish, but the fact that that behavior only merits action when it is the Right that objects, when it works against the Right but not the Left, is still a huge problem.  You're single-minded ("I hate Keith Olbermann and he deserves this") so you're blind to every other issue and point.

    For some of us (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:10:49 AM EST
    siding with Obama, was pandering to the right.  So, NBC is consistent.  Attacking Hillary, was part of the right wing love fest.

    Double standards do matter.... (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:16:32 AM EST
    ...but don't you think that part of the problem was that the DNC convention coverage was so very, very bad? Olberman, Matthews, and all the other MSNBC hacks made the entire convention about the Clintons. They just couldn't let it go. To that extent they were not doing any reporting or even analysis. They were just speculating and gossiping about Clinton motives and machinations even if what was really going on during the actual convention did nothing to support their ramblings. They doomed themselves, IMHO, by not being able to let their bias go and move on to cover actual current events. They performed poorly, and for that most people would suffer consequences at almost any workplace I know.

    I am single minded and consistent (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:19:16 AM EST
    I condemn Fox and I condemn Olbermann.

    Is there a comparable figure to Olbermann or Matthews on any network not Fox?


    Plus ... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:25:37 AM EST
    consistency arguments, in defense of something that was wrong to begin, are never convincing.

    not EVEN on Fox (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Klio on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:43:53 AM EST
    I don't know, but is there any personality on Fox who hacks for one Republican against another Republican?  Fox is contemptible, but I'm not sure it's as worthy of condemnation as Olbermann.  It's one thing to be the house organ; it's quite another to split the house, imho.

    Single-minded is right (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by GlennGreenwald on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:48:20 AM EST
    Or, put another way, to use the example of selective enforcement of speeding laws I described, you would be saying in response to those who object to the double standards:  "I'm single-minded and consistent.  All speeders are bad, so there's nothing else to say."

    That's worse than a non-sequitor.  Worse than a dense inability to understand the issue.  It's a claim that selective/biased enforcement of standards don't matter, as long as those against whom the standards are being (selectively) applied deserve it.  


    Minor but Important Edit... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by santarita on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:05:46 PM EST
    It's "non sequitur" not "non-sequitor".  Or maybe it's been misspelled so often that the misspelling is now the convention?

    Selective enforcement of journalistic standards is a good analogy.  But is that what really is happening here?  It might just be the MsNBC crew were such a bunch of clowns during the Conventions that something had to be done.  I had read that there was a lot of tension between Brokaw and the MSNBC crew.  Might that not be an explanation for what happened?


    well at least (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:21:06 AM EST
    they finally made the right decision even if, as you argue, it was for the wrong reason.  Olberman and Matthews should have NEVER been in the anchor position for political coverage.  The problem is tha MSNBC doesn't actually employ any real journalists.  All they have are pundits or ex journalists that they have turned into part-time pundits.

    Caving in to pressure (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:06:39 PM EST
    Another problem with KO and Matthews is that they clearly don't like each other. Matthews is resentful of KO's rise at MSNBC, and I think KO sees Matthews as his intellectual inferior. They often bickered at each other in a clearly personal way. Add the fact that Matthews is a bully who likes to shout over his guests, and is prone to cringe-worthy sexist statements, and you have a recipe for disaster.

    Having said all that, I am concerned that MSNBC has clearly bowed to pressure here. It would have been better if they'd never had KO and Matthews do the anchoring, since it was pretty predictable that they wouldn't work well with each other, and that they'd both bring their biases to the table (which are not always the same).

    Making it worse is that David Gregory is a complete lightweight. He had a few moments of glory when he was in the White House press room, occasionally asking pointed questions of Scott McClellan and Tony Snow, but he's now reverted to being the genial host who doesn't challenge his guests even when they're talking out of their asses. He never calls them on their lies and half-truths. If they'd replaced KO and Matthews with Brokaw, I'd be less concerned.  


    Perhaps if the Left had complained (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by davnee on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:23:34 AM EST
    during the primaries about the hacks the demotion would have come earlier.  But they didn't.  They got the candidate they wanted out of the primaries.  

    Many did complain (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by wasabi on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:34:37 AM EST
    Why do you think that Mattthews and Schuster had to retract their statements?  It sure wasn't pressure from the right.

    Countdown lost me as a viewer after Phil Griffin informed the complainers that they have "No place else to go".  Ahhh, yes we do.  And I let him know it too.


    Glenn, I think you're ignoring the cumulative... (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Southsider on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:26:52 AM EST
    ...nature of MSNBC's problems here.  It's not the exercise of a "double standard" so much as it is the continued piling up of incidents over time.  The primary bitterness was discrediting enough in its own right (IMHO), but had it ended there and KO/Matthews taken a "professional" turn, then I think we wouldn't be discussing this right now.  The problem is that the mortifying lapses of professionalism just kept growing - not just open partisanship, but the embarrassing on-air infighting btw. KO and Matthews/Scarborough and the Scarborough/Shuster shoutdown - and threatened to permanently cement MSNBC's image as a clownshoes operation.  

    This isn't a question of sudden caving and double-standards, but rather of an accruing series of incidents that were stacking up into a mountain of disrepute.


    A Good Point But... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by santarita on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:52:36 AM EST
    perhaps there is a better example of the mainstream media bowing to right wing pressure?

    The MSNBC crew distinguished themselves during the Convention by their in-fighting.  Maybe NBC did cave in to the right-wing but the MSNBC crew's antics helped make the case against them.  

    Should progressives be arguing for a counterbalance to Fox or for improving the quality of news and commentary so that the electorate is actually informed?


    Progressives have long argued (none / 0) (#75)
    by byteb on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:09:15 PM EST
    for improving the quality of news and commentary so that the electorate is informed. The rise of progressive blogs was a direct response to the deep anger most progressive felt after years of Gore Bshing followed by Kerry Bashing by the MSM. I remember watching the MSM treating the lies of the Swiftboat Vets as a credible story. In the interest of balance and with a straight face, they allowed a Kerry spokesperson equal time to counter the spew.

    Campbell Brown and CNN, the chants against NBC at the Republican convention, the NYT needing to defend their coverage of Palin and now Olbermann and Matthews replaced by the (Republican friendly, IMO) doltish, Gregory..these actions need to be seen as new assault on the MSM to assure positive coverage for McCain during the closing days of the  election.


    I have to disagree (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by BernieO on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:55:23 AM EST
    that NBC doesn't care about complaints from the Left. They were really rattled by all the complaints they got about the sexism directed at Clinton. However, liberals rarely complain in large numbers to the media so this was an aberration. There was serious talk about Tweety being pushed out this summer, but I would bet that the furor had died down so the brass thought they were safe and kept him around. (Anyone know if his contract has been renewed?)
    In contrast, for years Republicans have gotten  the rank and file to hammer the media when they think coverage is biased against them. They are also willing to go after corporate sponsors. This is extremely intimidating and it shows in the shift of news coverage to the right. In the 80's there was a lot of coverage of things like the environment, toxic spills, and homelessness. To watch the news today you would think these problems have disappeared. The networks are really afraid to cross the right. (Slap suits like the ones brought by Food Lion - still won't shop there - and the tobacco industry also intimidated the media.)

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by AlSmith on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:16:50 PM EST

    Olbermann is an embarrassment.

    I dont know where to start here... Greenwald ignores in his overly long story that Olbermann is an embarrassment to the network with this increasingly erratic and dictatorial behavior. Would you like to be the VP who has to defend what the hell is going on in your network that you are getting two or three news stories a week about how the thing is falling apart?

    MSNBC has Microsoft and NBC in the name and it is an embarrassment to both companies. An extra 200,000 from Olbermann isnt worth it. The joke used to be that MSNBC is a web site with a cable channel- the problem is that the web site is DailyKos. Since Nachman is gone the channel is completely predictable.

    But as much as I support completely canning Olbermann I am a little disquieted by a side effect. MSNBC is practically the only news inlet for the DailyKos and DU types. If they start boycotting MSNBC the cocoon will be complete. Already they live in a shadow world of rescued diaries, rumor and paranoid outrage. You can read those sites now and see only glancing similarity to real newsevents. If Olbermann is gone who will those morlocks listen too?


    I think this argument ignores (none / 0) (#40)
    by frankly0 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:24:26 AM EST
    the obvious point that, from the standpoint of a network and perceptions of bias against it, it is always going to be the cross party biases, and not the intra-party biases, that it must not be seen as embodying.

    In a two party country, where the division ideologically and otherwise so clearly falls across those parties, that is the bias that can most damage a network's long term credibility. It's the sort of bias that used to underlie the "fairness" doctrine (so far as I know, there was no presumptive need for "fairness" in treatment of candidates or factions within parties).

    The bias against Hillary was blatant and disgusting; but it was not left vs right, and so is more "forgivable" from the standpoint of a network.


    Is Olbermann working for the Left (none / 0) (#45)
    by lilburro on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:27:53 AM EST
    right now?  He still has his own show, which is a much easier to understand, harder to complain about platform for his views.  Why say the Right benefits from Olbermann being replaced, when they are more likely giddy that they can use MSNBC to easily complain about media coverage?  That will now be harder for them to do.

    I think that I (none / 0) (#47)
    by eric on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:29:10 AM EST
    do get your point:  that putting everything else aside, it took complaints from the Right for MSNBC to change.  Without regard to the merits of whether anything in the primaries was right or wrong, whether Olbermann was out of line or not (I think he was), the change has only come NOW.

    Do you not remember (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by lilburro on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:34:56 AM EST
    Ed Rendell calling out Olbermann and Brokaw admitting the problem at the start of the DNC Convention?  That was all of 2 weeks ago.

    KO's partisanship gave NBC (none / 0) (#63)
    by byteb on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:49:12 AM EST
    the 'out' they needed to fold to the Republicans who are putting pressure on the media. Last week, the McCain campaign refused to go on the Larry King show because Campbell Brown was nasty to one of McCain's bigwigs while at the convention, it was shades of Spiro Agnew with the attacks on the media. Whatever KO and Matthews' faults, NBC could have done this a lot earlier..it didn't take a crystal ball to predict KO's take on the Republican convention. This shake-up (or shake-down) occurred because McCain is strong arming the media.

    Campbell Brown (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by litigatormom on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:09:08 PM EST
    is with CNN, but I understand your point.  MSNBC was clearly afraid of the same treatment, and its no accident that Charlie Gibson, not Brian Williams or Brokaw, got the nod for that interview (which he has agreed to do over two days, ensuring that he's a "good boy" throughout.

    good point about Gibson (none / 0) (#76)
    by byteb on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:10:13 PM EST
    Mr. Greenwald, I wish you would have been (none / 0) (#86)
    by bridget on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:05:49 PM EST
    this worked up over Olbermann et al during the primaries when the biased MSNBC crowd maligned Hillary Clinton 24/7 and did their v. best to get Obama the Dem nomination. Instead Obama fan bloggers, pundits, and reporters ignored (and even mocked) complaints from Clinton supporters.

    Did it ever occur to you to fight for a much needed unbiased primary coverage on TV and paper? Did you remind  your fellow bloggers and Air America folks to be fair to Hillary Clinton as well? To both Clintons, actually?? Not from what I witnessed.

    Double stendards do matter.

    This is the General Election and I have no problem  believing that the Right complained about the MSNBC campaign coverage and demanded changes immediately - incl. Olbermann's demotion. Quite frankly, it doesn't surprise me at all. The media has always supported and fawned over the rightwing candidate while ridiculing the liberal candidate in the past elections. Of course, the GOP wants to keep it this way.

    btw. And what McCain is concerned pundits and reporters (liberals included) created the hero narrative for him for the last two decades and gladly "disappeared" all the negative stuff of this v. dangerous candidate. He is now reaping the benefits.    


    One the bright side ... (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:09:24 AM EST
    Obama's least helpful fans in the blogosphere will be busy with this for a few days, and can't cause more lasting damage to the campaign.

    Politics as a Game Show (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by santarita on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:10:24 AM EST
    Maybe NBC decided that the "politics as a game show" format wasn't selling.  

    One doesn't watch Chris Matthews show for content  because all of its content can be summarized in about 5 minutes.  The show is about whether Chris will let any of his guests talk and whether Chris will say anything outrageous.  Keith's show initially was interesting because he was the only national media figure willing to criticize the Bush Administration.  But even before the primaries his show became predictable: Bush Outrage of the Day, Bobblehead expert, and Special Comment.  The more predictable the show became, the more faux outrage was expressed in the Special Comment.  

    Neither are journalists.  Chris has been crowned a pundit by the Inside the Beltway crowd.  Keith is not a pundit.  He is more of an editorialist.  They should be happy that MSNBC gives them a platform.

    By the way, if Chris is running for the Senate, when should NBC stop giving him free campaign tv spots?

    When MSNBC allowed Keith to have that (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:20:38 AM EST
    special comment section, they killed the show. He was a little self righteous before that, but generally under control. Once given the oppurtunity to give an 8 minute rant regularly, he lost his damn mind.

    Special Comments Lose... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by santarita on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:58:50 AM EST
    their quality of being special is they are done too often.  Keith's Special Comments started out as "Truth to Power" moments where he was the Voice of the People.  The Special Comments became nothing more than Keith's Thought for the Day and the more banal those thoughts were the more he had to dress them up with vitriolic delivery.

    If MSNBC (KO and CHRIS) had come in First (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by TearDownThisWall on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:11:28 AM EST
    Place (per viewership ratings) ....i really wonder if they would have been demoted.

    Not a chance (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by BrianJ on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:16:47 AM EST
    Olbermann is being demoted for unprofessional behavior and for failing to get within hailing distance of O'Reilly.  When you've been hyped for years and O'Reilly still gets triple your ratings (as of the 2nd quarter of 2008), then patience starts wearing rather thin.

    What Came first- KO's Amaturish Behavior (none / 0) (#42)
    by TearDownThisWall on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:25:45 AM EST
    during the DNC Convention
    his the 3rd place finish?
    Am intrigued by the prospect of KO perhaps having to "debate" a right winger talking head pundit (Murphy/ Morning Joe maybe?) after debates.
    I have never seen KO debate anyone....ever.

    KO debate anyone (2.00 / 1) (#61)
    by mm on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:47:12 AM EST
    KO don't do debate.  

    You'll find more honest and real debate on any single O'Reily, Hannity or Hume show than you can find in all of the last 2 years of KO's show combined.  He don't book people who will disagree or debate him, just fawning synchophants.

    BTW, does this mean Olbermann can still keep his diary on the Daily Kos?


    On the issue of journalists being moved (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by nulee on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:13:52 AM EST
    in general, I noticed today that Hertzberg who INVARIABLY has the first slot in the New Yorker's Talk of the Town - has the third slot in the post convention coverage.  I cannot remember a time when he was not first.  Might this also have to do with his terrible coverage of the primaries, and letters of complaint that he was overly negative about HRC? Just askin'. Seems like the editor has dissed him big time.

    Regarding G. Greenwald...... (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by NYShooter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:19:06 AM EST
    most of the time Glenn can be counted on to recognize the core issue of whatever topic is being discussed. And most of the time he can be counted on to spread his criticism aound in a bipartisan manner. The excessive verbosity, using  2000 words when 500 would exhaust the subject is just my opinion and I can live with it. Yet "most" of the time, on a subject as vital as Hillary's unforgiveable mistreatment, is itself unforgiveable. My fingers trembled as I wrote my fitst ever critical comment to Glenn about some comments he made that seemed to indicate he too was becoming infected by the Hillary Hate syndrome. To my pleasant surprise, while he didn't respond, many of his posters did, and were supportive of my point. Even his readers, overwhelmingly anti-Hillary, were coming around to the unfairness somewhat faster than he did, and that's unfortunate.

    My comment was titled "Outrageous, yes. Not Hillary's statement....your misinterpretation of it."

    This post is one example (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Lil on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:28:51 AM EST
    of why this is one of, if not the best liberal blogs out there.

    It's the only one left (sorry about the pun). (none / 0) (#82)
    by lizpolaris on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:21:10 PM EST
    And we're all trying to hang onto some objectivity and discuss facts.

    Good on the admins for efforts to remain troll-free.


    I'm on it (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:38:20 AM EST

    Funny! (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by BernieO on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:00:43 PM EST
    Although the coverage plays a huge role in how the public sees the candidates so it can't be separated from the election, unfortunately.

    BTD, you are one of the few commentators left who are still objective and standing on principle. Thanks!


    I agree with this. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Iphie on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:40:44 AM EST
    the bottom line is partisan hackery masquerading as journalism should be denounced wherever we see it.

    And am glad NBC made the decision it did, but I imagine NBC's decision had much more to do with a desire to turn the cameras away from the slow-moving train wreck that the Olberman/Matthews/Shuster/Scarborough on-air nastiness had become than in restoring any sort of journalistic integrity. If all of the other on-air personalities had peacefully accepted the Olberman-is-god routine, I don't think NBC would have changed a thing. It was that NBC couldn't control their behaviour that was bothersome, not that NBC couldn't control the integrity of their political coverage.

    maybe a little off topic (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:43:56 AM EST
    but why is it necessary that all the cable news outlets only use news people or politicians as supposed experts to discuss issues.

    That ends up turning all issue oriented discussions into discussions about the "politics" of an issue.

    Wouldn't it be better if we could have subject matter experts discussing issues?

    Why don't we ever see healthcare experts when they discuss healthcare?  I'm not sure that Andrea Mitchell knows enough about healthcare to be able to analyze the pros and cons of each politician's healthcare proposals.

    Just Did Obama A Huge Favor (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by BDB on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:57:51 AM EST
    IMO, MSNBC just did Obama a huge favor by removing Olbermann and Matthews from a position where the could do even more damage (bad enough they will still have their own shows on which to embarrass themselves).  They drive away almost as many people as they attract, not with their liberalism, but with their misogyny (something that did not begin this election season with either Olbermann or Matthews, they both have a history).  

    I think Arthur Silber correctly described the result of some of their efforts on Obama's behalf:

    Last evening, I listened to a local radio talk show here in Los Angeles. The show has a conservative orientation, but it's not what I would call "hard" right, like Limbaugh or Hannity. It's moderately conservative, and the commentary falls well within the boundaries of sanity most of the time (perhaps generous boundaries at moments, but it is not cringe-inducing as a rule). The show offers views that I almost always disagree with, but they are views well within accepted and acceptable American political opinion.

    The cohosts (a man and a woman) were discussing Sarah Palin, the major topic on every such show these days, right and left. The woman said she hadn't been certain she was going to vote in November; neither candidate excited her that much. But, she continued, after seeing and hearing how many Democrats and liberals treated Palin, she was now determined to vote. I didn't take down exactly what she said, but it went pretty much like this: "After hearing these awful people go after Sarah Palin, I am definitely voting in November. I'm going to vote against Keith Olbermann.

    I don't really care why these two are gone, I'm just glad they are for women's sake.  And instead of arguing how they should be kept, we should be arguing why guys like Brit Hume should not be.  You don't beat the right by engaging in their truthiness, although it seems many this year are willing to try.

    But reality has a liberal bias and I prefer to live in reality because liberal's win there.  And the reality is that, in addition to their misogyny and bias, Olbermann and Matthews were also an embarrassment to NBC news for their unprofessional behavior on air in fighting with others.

    The Real Difference (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by BDB on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:41:30 PM EST
    I think Glenn misses the real difference between the complaints from the right and the left.  The Republicans always stand up as a party for their own.  The Democrats do not.  How many Democrats other than Clinton and her supportors complained about Shuster saying Hillary was pimping out Chelsea?  Not one.  And surely that's not really because Howard Dean doesn't get cable.

    The reason Republicans get more response to its complaints than Democrats is that it's more than the bloggers who complain about GOP mistreatment.  If Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi or hell even some A-list bloggers like Greenwald, then maybe MSNBC would've felt some compunction to restrain the daily attacks on Big Dem Hillary Clinton.  If the Democratic establishment routinely denounced and attacked Fox maybe it would feel some pressure, too.

    But the truth is that Democrats don't do this.  Democrats are all too willing to see other Democrats slimed if it benefits them politically.  Bob Somerby wrote about this the other day and I think it hits the nail on the head:

    Let's repeat what Fiorina said: "The Republican Party will not stand by while Gov. Palin is subjected to sexist attacks." Remove the limiting term there-"sexist." Thus adjusted, Fiorina's statement explains our electoral politics over the past twenty years.

    The Republican Party will not stand by while its candidates get attacked. The Democratic Party, and its major affiliates, have done just that. For years.

    Consider again the most remarkable instance of this repulsive conduct.

    In August 1999, Gennifer Flowers-a public crackpot-was invited on two different cable "news" programs to discuss, at remarkable length, the various murders the Clintons committed. (You read that correctly: their murders. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 9/26/03.) On August 2, she appeared for half an hour on Hardball; because her performance was so bizarre, she was then invited to do a full hour on Hannity & Colmes. On the latter program, Flowers extended her brief; she not only discussed the Clintons' murders, she took the chance to let the world know that Hillary Clinton was a big giant lesbo. After giving Flowers a full hour, Fox reran a half hour of "highlights" two nights later.

    At the time, Bill Clinton was president of the United States; Hillary Clinton was your nation's first lady. But so what? As best we can tell from Nexis archives, here's what did and didn't happen after those two programs aired:

    The Democratic Party didn't say a word about this astounding misconduct.

    No name-brand, liberal columnist said a word about it. (Examples: E.J. Dionne; Al Hunt; Mark Shields; Frank Rich.)

    No name-brand "liberal journal" ever mentioned what had happened.

    No "media reporter" discussed what occurred.

    In the Washington Post, Howard Kurtz mentioned Flowers' Hardball appearance. But he didn't report what she'd said.

    Now! Go back and reread Fiorina's statement, and consider the conduct of the past several days. If you still don't understand why your party loses, then let's face it-you never will.


    How does your political world work? Here's how:

    Sally Quinn and Maureen Dowd played the fool about Palin-and the Republican Party fought back hard. They've played the fool about Big Dems for years-and the Democratic Party said nothing.

    Yep! There was some sexism in the coverage of Palin-and the Republican Party fought back hard, exaggerating as it did. But then, during this same campaign, a major Democratic woman was gender-trashed from December 2006 on. Eighteen months later, Howard Dean explained why he didn't speak up. I don't watch that much cable, he said.

    As recently as last evening, some of our fools continued to say that they feel "insulted" by Palin's selection. If they had an ounce of sense, they'd instead feel insulted by Dean.

    The problem is not that the Republican fights against hacks and wins, the problem is that Democrats do not.  

    BDB, you hit all the nails on the head (none / 0) (#90)
    by S on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:01:53 PM EST
    ...and let me simply add, that how could the dems and liberals come to Hillary's defense when so many of them were out to sabatoge her...

    I still recoil when I think of Rep Jan Shavoskowsy (sp) from Illinois stammering on TV "Who does Hillary Clinton think she is?  How dare she bla, bla, bla?"

    ...the dems took the women for granted this year...it is 24 YEARS since Gerry Ferraro was on the national ticket...

    24 YEARS LATER, Hillary Clinton got 18 MILLION votes and that was still not enough to qualify her to be even second on the national ticket...

    ...how long do you think women are going to put up with the dems talking the talk when it comes to women...but 24 YEARS LATER, still not walking the walk...

    I guess democratic women are supposed to be satisfied that the men running the show will take care of their rights


    Simple answers to simple questions (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by lambert on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:42:47 PM EST
    BDT asks:

    Is the principle now that our hacks should be embraced?


    It's was truly amazing to see (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by lizpolaris on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:06:06 PM EST
    Greenwald, of all people, joining in the left-wing handwringing over KO and Tweety.

    (This one is so simple.  MSNBC wanted better ratings and promoted these guys to positions which were over their heads.  KO and Tweety are pundits like Carville, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, etc.  News anchors and debate moderators they ain't, and they never should have been.

    Bit late to fix the problem but good on NBC for doing it.

    IMO, MSNBC is already Fox Left.  With KO and Tweety assigned to straight news coverage, MSNBC was actually worse than Fox.  Even Fox didn't have O'Reilly as the main anchor for coverage of the conventions.

    When KO advised Scarborough to get a shovel, little did he know that he'd just picked up his own.)

    Greenwald is blaming the right for this 'job reassignment'?  Hilarious!  Maybe he missed all the on air hissing and clawing between KO and Tweety or all the catty side comments.  With any job, if you make your company look stupid, you'll probably be removed from visibility to your clients.

    But is David Gregory any better? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Christy1947 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:44:09 AM EST
    I have watched enough Road to the White House with him to get an automatic gag reflex. He is stiff and often partisan in a way that is so mechanical and scripted. And he lacks genuine imagination, to see the effects of things, and the absurdity, in a year when absurdity is at a high point. And who picks the commentators? Not the talking heads. This is just NBC folding to partisan pressure.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:45:49 AM EST
    Gregory is certainly more of a journalist than Olbermann, who basically was O'Reilly for the LEft.

    Come on, Tent (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:07:56 AM EST
    Saying Gregory is more of a journalist than Olbermann is like saying horseh*t tastes better than cow sh*t.  

    Gregory will do nothing but overcompensate for Olbermann and company's flaws, that's what he's being put there to do.  He knows that part he is being asked to play in this production.

    The fact is, when anyone talks about change, be they pols or news people, they ALWAYS mean liberal must become more conservative.  We never expect or demand the right try to come more toward the left, we are always expected to go to their side more.  

    That is our puritan heritage at work.  


    True dat (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:14:53 AM EST
    Let's protest Gregory then, not the demotion of Olbermann.

    I think so (none / 0) (#49)
    by TheRizzo on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:31:13 AM EST
    Beside Brokaw who sometimes works on the network, David Gregory is the most balanced, clear headed of the lot at the network.  Especially when he is a guest on shows like Morning Joe or in his post convention reviews etc.  

    Miles better than KO and Matthews anyways.


    So MSNBC should aspire to be Fox...? (none / 0) (#3)
    by jeffhas on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:44:44 AM EST
    Hume is clearly right leaning, no doubt.... but I cannot recall him picking one candidate in the Primary over another... and burying one with an overblown smear of a special comment.

    ... since he is retiring after this election, we'll have to see which other hack will take over (Chris Wallace?)...


    Good for the goose? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Mike H on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:48:28 AM EST
    I think the problem is that despite clearly being partisan hackery, FoxNews has convinced a lot of people it is "fair and balanced" AND it gets a high audience share AND it sets the tone for a lot of media coverage AND it gets people to buy into their framing of the issues.  

    So I think the more pertinent issue is -- will "real" news journalism ever make a comeback?  If the answer is yes, then it would be good for the left to take the high road, and NBC's and MSNBC's actions will be a positive thing.

    But if "real" news  journalism is essentially dead, then all this decision does is cut off the legs of the only strongly liberal-slanting media outlet, which only reduces the messaging power of the Democrats, and leads us again into a cycle of the GOP winning the media war with lies and spin and bullying.

    Which leads them to winning elections that they should rightly lose if the truth were actually put in front of the American people.

    Do we take the high road which may cede the future to the GOP and FoxNews?  

    Or do we fight fire with fire?  If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?  And how much of ourselves do we lose if we go that route?

    I think you misread (none / 0) (#12)
    by mingus on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:59:24 AM EST
    Greenwald's arguments.  He isn't saying that Olberman is God, but rather is pointing out the differences as to how liberal and conservative journalists, commentators and news persons are treated (a la Bob Somerby).  Conservatives complain and fight to get what they want in the media (and it works).  Liberals not so much.

    Excuse me (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:03:34 AM EST
    YOU make my point. Liberals should NOT want an Olbermann.

    Greenwald does want an Olbermann.

    I understood his argument perfectly as you confirm.


    I don't want to get into (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by mingus on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:29:34 AM EST
    a big argument because I am definitely not an Olbermann supporter, but I do think that the points Greenwald makes are being given the short shrift by you and some others here. What I see is not an explicit argument on behalf of Olbermann, but rather an argument that shows how disfunctional our media is with regard to the way outspoken liberals (or those who have a liberal viewpoint on some issues like Olbermann) are treated, while a different attitude is taken toward toward partisan conservatives.  That's his point.  Not, Olbermann is so great. If Rachel Maddow had taken Olbermann's spot, I doubt he would have said anything. His points - 1) MSNBC bowed to pressure from the Republican party; 2) Olbermann was the highest rated MSNBC show, yet they demoted him because of that pressure; 3) the whole concept of liberal media is a joke and 4) Conservative partisanship a la Fox and Brit Hume gets nary a word of complaint.  I think those are all valid points which you've failed to adress in your post.

    Question for you BTD (none / 0) (#32)
    by davnee on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:15:48 AM EST
    And I ask this respectfully.  You have been very clear from the get-go that you favored Obama because he is the media darling.  Meaning you supported him for an instrumental rather than a substantive reason (though I grant that you claimed you saw little substantive difference between Obama and Clinton).  Aren't GG and other liberals that want a Fox Left just behaving in a similarly instrumental fashion?  Isn't it about winning first and foremost?  Isn't that why you were a tepid Obama supporter?

    Disclaimer:  I agree with you on MSNBC.  I think there are principles that come before winning at any cost.  I just saw a parallel here that struck me as interesting.


    A question for you (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:26:19 AM EST
    Do you think Olbermann helps Obama?

    Touche (none / 0) (#54)
    by davnee on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:38:29 AM EST
    Now no.  Primaries I think was a bit of a different story, but now that you have an opponent that can and will successfully run against the media, KO is not helpful.  

    And kudos to you for outmaneuvering my question.  Still think you get caught up a bit in the thicket when you make choices based on instrumental factors rather than substantive principles and preferences.  But that's politics.  Finding the right balance of winning and doing good (which requires winning).  I like to believe that politics still involves the latter.


    heh (none / 0) (#60)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:44:01 AM EST
    Matthews was certainly better than Olberman. I like Olberman but I dont watch him.  He simply isnt cut out for keeping his opinions to himself.  And I dont need his opinions, I know I'm right already.

    Are Olbermann's ratings holding up? (none / 0) (#64)
    by esmense on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:52:32 AM EST
    The Hillary bashing brought MSNBC an increase in young, male viewership. This is, from any network and it's advertisers point of view, a VERY desirable yet hard to reach demographic.

    Once Hillary was out of the race, did the antics of Olbermann and Matthews matter as much to this audience? Did their interest and viewership fall off? And if it did, did MSNBC decide that the perception of a "left" bias the network earned with its support for Obama in the primaries was now a liability in terms of competition for the traditional audience for cable network political coverage -- upscale, older white males (a pretty Republican crowd)?


    Don't let the door hit you boys in the... (none / 0) (#77)
    by JoeCHI on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:12:40 PM EST
    Good riddance!

    Idealism versus the world as it is (none / 0) (#83)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:26:24 PM EST
    Greenwald's complaint is obviously that NBC bowed to pressure from the right to limit its timid moves to cover stories in a way favorable to the left or to Democrats.

    It's not as if there is any objective journalism - all there is is right bias passing for objectivity. When there's any sign that the US media are trying to return to the goal of "objective" journalism then it's time to start complaining about left bias along with right bias - not before that happens.

    The way things are, even pompous idiots like Olbermann are worth having in prominent slots in the media because they bring stories into public discussion that otherwise aren't brought up at all or are brought up only to discredit them. When "objective" journalists start doing that without fear or favor, then it'll be time to give Olbermann and his ilk the heave-ho, not before. Same goes for the blogs.

    Speaking beyond the exigencies of the current election cycle during which the media needs to be pressured to allow a Dem win to be even possible, long term it's a good thing to champion a higher standard for journalism. In a post-modern world though I'm really not sure what that standard could possibly be, since the old standards were no standards either - bias then was just part of the background and therefore so pervasive as to be unseen.

    olbermann (none / 0) (#85)
    by disappointed on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:04:53 PM EST
    I used to run home after a long days work slogging as a lawyer in a Republican dominated law firm to watch Keith Olbermann.  If I missed an earlier broadcast, I would watch at 10:00PM.  I loved the "worst person" segment. Although prior to the campaign, I felt the special comments were beginning to be over-the-top, tendentious & didactic. The treatment of Hillary, who was the best qualified of the candidates of both parties, really alienated me.  I was/am so disgusted with Olbermann & Matthews--I do not watch their shows any more.  It really is amusing to see those two puzzled that anyone would accuse them of sexism.  Does anyone remember Olbermann commenting that Hillary should be taken into a back room and shown etc. etc.  These two are pundits with definite points of view and as a wife of a journalist I can say--you are not a journalist.  Olbermann gives Edward R. Murrow a bad name.

    This is y we lose (none / 0) (#87)
    by bowchikabowbow on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:21:17 PM EST
    This is why we Dems lose all the time. Conservatives never eat their own like we do. Here is MSNBC becoming the liberal version of Fox and what do we do? We say, "no, we don't want that." I'm sorry people, but if we Dems want to have Obama for 8 years followed by Hillary for 8 more then we gotta get a well oiled propaganda machine like the GOP has in Fox.

    I understand that we're not all happy about Olbermann's coverage of Hillary, but I'm sure he would have been her biggest ally in the media had she won the primaries. Nobody thinks of Olbermann as a journalist so stop holding him to that standard. He speaks for our party in the media and we need more of them.

    BTD - left wing hack? (none / 0) (#88)
    by elrapido on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:32:15 PM EST
    Greenwald cites the right wing hack Howie "the Shill" Kurtz for this proposition. But we all know Kurtz himself is a right wing hack. What credibility does he have?\

    That statement might well lead one to ask the same of you.

    turning off (none / 0) (#89)
    by S on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:44:22 PM EST
    When are the dems going to understand that all this gender talk, sexism and attack is one big TURN OFF...it was a turn off when directed at Hillary and it is still a turn off when directed at Palin...a turn off to even most fair minded female Dems, let alone independents and moderate repubs...

    many women are beyond being offended and just starting to tune it all out mentally and turn the channel at the same time...enough, already...(what's on HGTV?)

    ...but avoid all warnings, continue to cut nose and spite face...if that makes you feel all tough and your bad all selves...

    can you say BACKLASH?