home

Reading Comprehension

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:45:26 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Apparently, Michael Stickings did not understand my post. More likely Clinton Derangement Syndrome took over. Stickings writes:

Indeed, the view of the media as supporting Obama over Hillary is a popular one among Hillary supporters — see Taylor Marsh and TalkLeft’s Big Tent Democrat, for example, both of whom, believe it or not, argue that Rendell is right. Here’s the latest Clintonian trend: suck up to the right-wing media. . . I’ll let Steve Benen translate: “Rendell’s argument seemed to be that Fox News is more negative towards Obama than the credible cable news networks, which therefore makes Fox News ‘fair,’ ‘objective,’ and ‘balanced.’”

Stickings denies the Media favors Obama over Clinton? Well, what more do you need to know about where his mind has gone. But it is a shame to see that Steve Benen suffers from the same Clinton hating disease. Let me explain to Benen and Stickings one more time. The argument is NOT that Fox is fair to Dems. It is not. It is unbelievably unfair and biased against Dems. We all know this. The point is that the Obama News Network (NBC) is so in the tank for Obama, and so anti-Hillary, that Fox is fair by comparison to NBC. Now they KNOW this was the point. But they ignored the NBC point of Rendell's comments. It's sad really what Clinton hate can do to once fine minds. More . . .

Keith Olbermann remains a ridiculous fool. Rendell is talking about YOU Keith. It is like he has no idea what he is and what his networks. He says Ed rendell is "no friend of Clinton and an idiot." sorry, Keith, you are the idiot if you think anyone takes you seriously anymore. Give it up. Obamabots love your little schtick. Clinton supporters hate it. They are not idiots. Even if you think they are.

< From The "Duh" File | SUSA IN Poll: Clinton By 9 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Reading Comprehension | 119 comments (119 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Adrain Lesher (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:21:07 PM EST
    You are suspended. Do not comment any further today. Your comments will be deleted. Day after day, you are incapable of posting without insulting this site, me or Jeralyn.

    If you decide never to come back, I will not mind.

    Olberman needs (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by jes on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:22:05 PM EST
    a rabies shot.

    BTD, your column was way too kind (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:50:50 PM EST
    You said: "It's sad really what Clinton hate can do to once fine minds".

    I disagree that there was once a "fine" mind. Fine minds are not so easily corroded. The current depravity suggests an underlying feeble-mindedness that was there all along (imo).

    Glad you brought up (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Becki Jayne on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:15:25 PM EST
    Steve Benen's suffering from CDS. I've noticed it starting a couple of months ago and now evidently it's developed into a full blown case. Sad, one of the biggest disappointments of this campaign season has been bloggers who have succumbed to CDS.

    Thanks for keeping your head in the reality-based community, BTD. Can't say that about others anymore.

    Mediamatters.com has nicely documented... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by lucky leftie on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:42:58 PM EST
    ...the various slurs from the gang at NBC, including David Shuster and Tim Russert.  The proof is right there, with video.  

    As a PA voter, I've often been amazed that Rendell has been so successful, given his propensity to stick his foot in his yapper.  In this case, he's absolutely right.  

    Rendell said Fox New was "balanced" (2.33 / 3) (#13)
    by AF on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:59:51 PM EST
    Which is absolutely false.  Fox, as always, is a Republican hit machine skewering Dems in the most unfair and unbalanced way.

    It's true they are balanced as between Hillary and Obama, but that's not what Rendell said.  He said they were "balanced" and other stations are not.  That's just wrong.  The fact that other stations are unbalanced does not make Fox balanced.

    Rendell was clearly (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:02:31 PM EST
    talking abobut the coverage of Clinton v. Obama without reference to the coverage of Dems v. Republicans more generally. That's why he said Fox hates both our candidates.

    Parent
    He said it expressly (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:04:12 PM EST
    AF's comment is simply false. I believe it was delberately so as I had this conversation with AF yesterday. I detest seeing good commenters do this. And AF is a good commenter.

    Parent
    Rendell clearly watches all of news networks. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:11:05 PM EST
    You can tell from his Charlie Rose interview.

    You were right yesterday when you said that the "just kidding" part wasn't true at all.

    Parent

    Reading comprehension (none / 0) (#31)
    by AF on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:12:08 PM EST
    Nothing I said was false.

    I am perfectly aware that Rendell's intention was to call out NBC. I read his comments and understand that his main point was to criticize NBC.  Nothing I have written contradicts this.

    My problem is that in calling out NBC, Rendell said that Fox is balanced -- not comparatively balanced, but balanced -- in its coverage of the Dem primary.  That's not only untrue in my opinion, but unhelpful coming from a Dem in an election year.

    Parent

    What horrible thing is going to happen (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:15:18 PM EST
    because Rendell said Fox was balanced in that they hated both Democrats? Will all Dems say, 'oh, ok, I guess I can get my news from Fox now since the Governor of PA says they're "balanced."' Dems are not as stupid as you seem to think they are. I don't see this as hurtful at all.

    Parent
    Nothing horrible is going to happen (none / 0) (#36)
    by AF on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:16:48 PM EST
    Which is why I'm not personally in a foul mood.

    Sorry to annoy you BTD!

    Parent

    I hate seeing good commenters (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:18:36 PM EST
    writing bad comments.

    Parent
    To give credence to a Network that consistently (none / 0) (#132)
    by demps on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:49:49 AM EST
    peddles in filth, that has persistently enabled a corrupt administration, serving to disseminate its propaganda (I know, I am being a little grandiose, but the point remains), and that consistently erodes the public discourse, I am sorry, I like Rendell, and this really is no great mark against him, it is a trifle, but I won't attempt to justify it either.

    Parent
    Not true. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:16:22 PM EST
    Rendell:

    I think during this entire primary coverage, starting in Iowa and up to the present -- FOX has done the fairest job, and remained the most objective of all the cable networks. You hate both of our candidates. No, I'm only kidding. But you actually have done a very balanced job of reporting the news, and some of the other stations are just caught up with Senator Obama, who is a great guy, but Senator Obama can do no wrong, and Senator Clinton can do no right.

    He is saying that Fox is more objective than other networks when covering the primaries, clearly referring to MSObama. He is not saying Fox is fair and balanced IN GENERAL.

    Pretty obvious to those who aren't blinded by HDS. Which was exactly BTD's point.

    Parent

    NBC's Chris Mathews and Olberman are (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:19:19 PM EST
    the biggest losers.. I saw that have started to repeat countdown twice (8:00 PM and 10:00 PM) just to make for the lost users!!

    They have lost respect, esp. Olberman !! I know he has been rumored to have been offered some position in Obama if he gets nomination.. but his coverage and narratives are so obvious as if his @ss is on the line not Obama's!!

    Parent

    Your point (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:16:11 PM EST
    You just defeated it.

    I apologize for doubting you believed what you wrote. But you are making no sense, imo of course.

    Parent

    My take (none / 0) (#37)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:17:28 PM EST
    is that it was a clear message to Democrats that we should not trust anything about the election coming from NBC/MSNBC. He was right, unfortunately, FOX has been the most balanced with regards to HRC vs. BO.

    I don't expect FOX to love our candidate come the fall, and I realize that any rift they play up now is something they can use later, but it just proves how ridiculous NBC has become.

    Parent

    You are being (none / 0) (#44)
    by eric on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:20:23 PM EST
    deliberately obtuse.  You KNOW that Rendell doesn't think that Fox is balanced generally.  Yet you continue to play this "gotcha" politics.  "Caught you saying Fox was balanced!  Gotcha!"

    Parent
    He said it was balanced as to the Dem race (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:02:00 PM EST
    Your comment is a falsehood as to what Rendell said.

    But act ignorant like Stickings and Benen if you like.

    You know what he was talking about. Keith Olbermann for one.

    I really hate disingenuous comments like yours. And I am in a foul mood. I will not be kind today.

    Parent

    Another Hero!! on CNN (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:06:01 PM EST
    I never used to like Lou Dobbs but he has called more often than anyone else and most recently yesterday, that media is strongly biased against Hillary..

    Parent
    What's weird about him (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:12:01 PM EST
    is that he sounds really reasonable on many issues. But get him talking about immigration, and oh boy, he is a crazy man!

    Parent
    I agree that Lou dobbs has some serious (none / 0) (#122)
    by hairspray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:36:06 PM EST
    issues with immigration and goes ballistic.  But I like that he has talked about the middle class being thrown overboard by the corporations.  On more than one occasion he has had a guest from a financial/investment group talk about how good it is to "outsource" jobs and Lou has taken after him, rolling his eyes and challenging the guest unmercifully.  He almost talks like Thom Hartmann sometimes on the loss of the middle class and how it is killing our democratic policies. For that I think he has an important message.  He could be more "fair and balanced" about the pros and cons of immigration. But he does differentiate legal from illegal.

    Parent
    Lou Dobbs is a racist (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:37:51 PM EST
    imo.

    Parent
    That's what I was trying to say (none / 0) (#66)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:42:24 PM EST
    with my immigration remark.

    He is very scared of people with a little extra melanin in their skin, methinks.

    Parent

    His wife is Hispanic, FWIW (none / 0) (#90)
    by wasabi on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:59:25 PM EST


    Parent
    I am talking about his fairness to calling (none / 0) (#95)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:03:44 PM EST
    the anti-hillary biasness...

    every anchor has his own issues.. and I don't trust any one of them.. all of them have their own hidden agendas! I learned the hard way after I trusted Obmerman!!


    Parent

    Correction to Dobbs quote (none / 0) (#128)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:13:18 PM EST
    Moopsy, I'm no fan of Lou, but he didn't almost say "cotton-picking black leaders".

    This is what he actually said as quoted by HuffPo from the video: Then Dobbs tripped over his words, as he declared, "Not a single one of these cotton...[stammering]...these just ridiculous politicians should be the moderator on the issue of race."

    Lou Dobbs "Cotton" Video.

    To be picky about it (har, har), Dobbs didn't even say the "picking" part of the cotton-picking phrase.

    Parent

    Dobbs may be somewhat reasonable regarding Senator (none / 0) (#131)
    by demps on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:44:55 AM EST
    Clinton, but he is still a bloviating demagogue, and  coming to one candidate's defense does not ennoble him.

    Parent
    It is not balanced as to the Dem race (none / 0) (#26)
    by AF on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:07:11 PM EST
    For both Hillary and Obama, Fox gives the negatives more attention than they deserve and the positives less.  That is the very definition of unbalanced coverage.

     

    Parent

    Now you want to act foolsih (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:09:54 PM EST
    Rendell said Fox was balanced as to Clinton and Obama - they hate both of them.

    Rendell was clearly alluding to Fox, and Doocy knew that EXACTLY.

    I told you I was in a foul mood. And you are making it worse.

    No one was claiming Fox was fair to Dems. NO ONE.

    Stop pretending someone was saying it. All you do is annoy me and look foolish.


    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:40:13 PM EST
    the thing that is simply unbalanced can appear balanced IN CONTRAST to that which is vastly more UNbalanced.

    Capeesh?


    Parent

    Benen's logic seems outta whack (none / 0) (#1)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:51:12 PM EST
    "Rendell's argument seemed to be that Fox News is more negative towards Obama than the credible cable news networks, which therefore makes Fox News `fair,' `objective,' and `balanced.'"

    There seems to be a faulty premise embedded in there somewhere.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:00:13 PM EST
    the phrase "NBC" seems to have been lost from Benen's vocabulary.

    Atrios at least acknowledged what Rendell was talking about.

    Parent

    Benen has been contorting logic and reason (none / 0) (#52)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:26:32 PM EST
    for some time now, which is why I am here, and not there anymore.

    It's gotten to the point where I sometimes wonder if we are speaking the same language; even when using words of one syllable, it seems impossible for some people to grasp the concept of "fair."  But, in another sense, who can blame them, when all around are examples of the media failing to report news, and providing non-stop opinions which they disguise as news.  Honestly, I am so tired of Andrea Mitchell saying, night after night that the Clinton campaign "claims" this or that, while endowing everything-Obama as if we know it is all true, that I have been having the strongest urge to reach through my TV screen and wipe the smug and self-satisfied expression off her face - she could not flavor her "reporting" with more disdain for Clinton if she tried - and that is "not fair."  It would be just as wrong for her and others to give the same treatment to Obama, but at least there would be some consistency.

    I truly despair at the state of whatever-this-stuff-is-that-is-supposed-to-be-news, and once-upon-a-time-we-called-journalism.  It seems to be almost extinct and I'm not sure it can or will be saved.


    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#2)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:51:37 PM EST
    I always watch Fox at lunch, since it's what every business establishment has on.  When Obama has landed his major endorsements (Kennedy, Richardson) they've had full-blown coverage of the rallies, complete with cheering crowds, favorable sound bites in the crawl at the bottom... so they're hardly a 24/7 source of Obama hatred, to say the least.  But Rendell's claim, which seems virtually indisputable to me, is simply that Fox has been even-handed AS BETWEEN the two Democratic candidates.  Not sure why making that claim equates to sucking up to the right-wing media.

    On the other hand, today's lunchtime episode on Fox appeared to be a deeply serious discussion of Obama's "punished with a baby" quote, which we're told has offended some conservatives.

    Not to mention... (none / 0) (#38)
    by gmo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:17:45 PM EST
    ...likely to offend some of the pro-life Casey Democrats in Pennsylvania.

    Parent
    it offends me too (none / 0) (#48)
    by irene adler on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:25:13 PM EST
    and i'm pro-choice and not even close to being a conservative.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#53)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:30:30 PM EST
    We all know what he meant, right?

    Are we supposed to pretend that it's some sort of blessing when a 15-year old gets pregnant?  Since I have a daughter I'd like to know.

    Parent

    What if (none / 0) (#89)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:59:16 PM EST
    Obama "mis-speaks" and some foreign leader doesn't wait for the W.O.R.M. and just goes ahead and fires the nuke?

    That's a pretty radical example, but you get the implication don't you?

    Parent

    i'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#121)
    by irene adler on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:20:54 PM EST
    that i know what he meant. when teenagers get pregnant it's world changing for the whole family. permanently.

    i think i cut off my first comment too soon. what i mean is that phrase, 'punished with a baby,' really hits a nerve. hard. and if it hits that nerve with someone like me, who is both liberal and pro-choice i wonder at the reactions of those on the opposite end of the spectrum.

    i don't know if this is going to become a big deal. time will tell.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#125)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:20:38 PM EST
    I respect where you're coming from.  I just don't really "get" it, if you know what I mean.  I'd like to understand.

    Parent
    thanks for that (none / 0) (#126)
    by irene adler on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:17:45 PM EST
    and yours may be the more common reaction. my reaction surprised even me. like i said, it just hit a nerve... putting the words 'babies' and 'punishment' in the same sentence.

     

    Parent

    Gaffe in the Kinsley sense (none / 0) (#68)
    by rilkefan on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:45:28 PM EST
    Some pro-lifers do look on unwanted babies as due punishment meted out to sexual^h^h^h^h^h^h sinful girls.

    The quote makes me cringe though.

    Parent

    mind has gone (none / 0) (#3)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:52:21 PM EST
    hate, hating disease, Derangement

    Those are some evil people out there.

    Id o not care for your c omments (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:59:14 PM EST
    at this site. Just my opinion. and you are free to continue to offer them. But follow the rules. I believe you stray dangerously close to breaking them at times. Now go back and report to the mothership about how mean I am.

    Parent
    I take your (none / 0) (#16)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:01:58 PM EST
    warning more seriously than you may believe.  I don't want to be at any other ship.  

    I want to contribute with my thoughts, but even more I want to avoid any lines.

    Parent

    Then play right (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:02:55 PM EST
    At least here. I know you will take on another personna at the mothership.

    Parent
    Agreed. It was not a difficult argument to follow (none / 0) (#4)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:53:30 PM EST
    And it's so obviously true that FOX's coverage of the Democratic candidates is negative in a balanced way, while NBC's negative coverage is largely reserved for Clinton.

    Why must every disagreement... (none / 0) (#5)
    by ItsGreg on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:54:20 PM EST
    ...about perceptions be the result of "Clinton hate" or "Obama hate"? Can't it simply be a matter of interpretation? Must we always assume that these disagreements are all driven by some unreasoned hatred?

    Hmm (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:57:52 PM EST
    If you can provide a rational explanation for the dishonest interpretation of my post, I would be glad to hear it. did you write to Michael sticking about your thoughts on this matter? How come I am the only "beneficiary" of your "wisdom." I am in a foul mood today. Please do not try my patience.

    Parent
    The beneficiary of my wisdom? (none / 0) (#127)
    by ItsGreg on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 07:52:44 PM EST
    I was just asking why everybody...not just you, but people on both sides of these fusses...are so quick to assume hatred. Passionate Obama supporters attribute every criticism or negative comment about him to "Obama hatred" and passionate Clinton supporters do the same and attribute it to "Clinton hatred."

    I'm only suggesting that hatred might not be the motive. It might actually be an honest misinterpretation.

    I'm sorry you're in a foul mood. I'm not sure what I said that merited the snarky response, though.

    Parent

    IMHO (none / 0) (#6)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:54:45 PM EST
    Fox suffers from Democrat Derangement Syndrome...which oddly, doesn't unbalance the mind as much as HDS...

    Not quite (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:03:02 PM EST
    When Fox attacks Democrats, they know exactly what they're doing. Keith, in all of his ridiculous self-righteousness, thinks he's being fair.

    Parent
    I see we agree (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:09:39 PM EST
    since Keith is unhinged by his HDS, and Fox News is sanely, deliberately and intentionally hateful to all Democrats. :-)

    Parent
    Nah (none / 0) (#32)
    by Robo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:14:46 PM EST
    Keith is a very intelligent guy.  I don't think there is any way he thinks he is being fair.  He knows his is an opinion, not a news, show.

    Parent
    Is he intelligent? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:19:29 PM EST
    I never claimed he was before so I am not married to my previous words. I have no idea if he is or is not.

    Parent
    I always thought he was (none / 0) (#49)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:25:33 PM EST
    given the extreme eloquence of his earlier Special Comments.

    The one on 9/11/07 was stunning, IIRC.

    Parent

    Hmm (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:38:56 PM EST
    I never cared for his Special comments. Too overwrought (pot calling the kettle black.)

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#78)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:50:10 PM EST
    at least you are fair. you support Obama but don't have HDS. I enjoy your posts.

    Parent
    agree, studied pomposity (none / 0) (#134)
    by g8grl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:00:03 PM EST
    I used to do the same thing when I was in high school.  Used lots of big words thinking that it made me sound smarter and it, inevitably, just made me sound like an idiot.  Same thing for Olbermann, except he adds a basso tone that puts me in mind of a giant windbag.

    Parent
    I always found them annoyingly (none / 0) (#94)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:02:48 PM EST
    wordy and bloviating.

    The only one I liked was the first one.

    Parent

    He seems very (none / 0) (#63)
    by Robo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:40:41 PM EST
    intelligent to me.  Or, at least, he knows alot of stuff.

    Parent
    I've always thought KO (none / 0) (#87)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:57:37 PM EST
    was kind of cheesy.  If he were truly intelligent and able to engage in debate, he'd have guests who didn't just echo his talking points.  

    I did admire him for his anti-Bush stance and particularly for his coverage of voting fraud, but I tuned him out long before this election season.  His bashing of O'Reilly (of whom I'm no fan) got tiresome.  He tried to start a fight with Anderson Cooper over some petty issue - I can't even remember what it was now.  He just seemed like an attention w***e to me.

    And his poaching of "Good Night and Good Luck" was highly presumptuous, IMO.  You, sir, are no Edward R. Murrow!

    Parent

    That was another thing I hated (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:05:13 PM EST
    The excessive use of the word "sir" in the special comments.

    Parent
    keep the masses ignorant as they are (none / 0) (#7)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:55:14 PM EST
    easier to rule ....

    Will of the people.. (none / 0) (#9)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:57:55 PM EST
    it is the same syndrome that Obama supporters suffer because they are bias towards candidate not principles..

    I was just reading Pelosi's statement where she said..

    "vote their conscience" but do so in a way that is in accordance "with the will of the people."

    Now I heard some of his supporters on TV yesterday , in question to how they think he will fare in PA, were touting how Obama had been winning more delegates even though he was losing popular votes.. and in worse condition he will not lose the delegates as much by the margin as indicated by the popular vote..

    Looks to me that this primary election is designed to go "against the will of the people" ... Then HOW come these same party leaders are talking about the will of the people without speaking against the very system that goes against the will of the people..

    After all you see what you want to see.. just like all Obama supporters ... biased towards candidates and not towards principles!!

    The will of which people? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:00:21 PM EST
    Guess Kerry, Kennedy and Napolitano are voting for Hillary then, since their states went for her...

    It's a ridiculous argument. The will of the people is split - that's why we have superdelegates.

    Parent

    x (none / 0) (#108)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:19:52 PM EST
    I think what they are really saying (and they think they are being subtle about it) is that "some people are more equal than others." They must not remember their Orwell.


    Parent
    right on about Olbermann too... (none / 0) (#10)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:58:22 PM EST
    I used to love him when his Special Comments were bashing Bush.

    Sigh.

    I was so surprised (none / 0) (#25)
    by Robo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:06:14 PM EST
    to find others (here) who had abandoned Olbermann in the last few months.  Used to love him, and now don't even want to see his face.  I also loved the first couple of Bush-bashing Special Comments, but after the first couple, even that got old.  I don't plan to go back to him, even after the nominee is selected.

    Does anyone know if his ratings have been cut in half since Hillary supporters quit watching?

    Parent

    I can't stand to look at his stupid smirk anymore. (none / 0) (#59)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:38:03 PM EST
    Hope he gets cancelled soon

    Parent
    KO seemed to be the only guy on (none / 0) (#123)
    by hairspray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:52:35 PM EST
    TV who talked back to the Bush Administration when everyone else was cowering in the corner.  For that he earned my respect.  However, his celebrity news, clashes with O'Reilly and most of his  silliness over funny events got old after a while.  Now that he has drunk the Obama koolaide, there doesn't seem to be much of a reason to watch him.

    Parent
    Just To Reiterate (none / 0) (#11)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:59:01 PM EST
    Media Bias

    How did he (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jgarza on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:18:12 PM EST
    misinterpret you?  He said you said the media is unfair to Clinton, and "worships" Obama.  You said that.  He said you think if the other news networks were as negative about Obama as fox they would be fair.  You do, because you think that other networks are as negative as fox is to Clinton.  

    This confirms it (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:21:50 PM EST
    I expect this from you. I expect better from Stickings.

    Parent
    Air America too (none / 0) (#51)
    by nellre on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:26:18 PM EST
    I listen to talk shows when driving.
    I've been less offended by Savage than some of the anti-Hillary hosts on Air America. Malloy's rants are insane.
    The hatred is palpable.

    We should be going after McCain and let our dem candidates campaign.

    AAR, Dkos, TPM (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:49:36 PM EST
    and quite a few more have been deleted from my bookmarks. I no longer subscribe to MoveOn.org and have withdrawn all funding to them. I no longer watch "Countdown" or most of MSNBC. I still subscribe to the NYT for home delivery as well as my local Republican owned rag of a newspaper. Alas, I need to line the kitty litter box with something. I read the editorials and follow the news on the Internet. CNN has some value but obviously leans Republican and is still not very accurate in their reporting on the Democratic Primary.
    I came to this blog because of the moderation of the community. I have said this many times, Jeralyn and BTD expect everyone to abide by the rules. I think they are good rules. Be civil, be honest, be accurate.

    Parent
    That is so true (none / 0) (#54)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:31:03 PM EST
    I used to be an avid listener to AAR. They have lost me for good with their constant Hillary-bashing. They're supposed to be supporting Democrats and liberals, not trying to destroy them.

    There's a video on YouTube of Randi Rhodes, whom I used to love, calling Geraldine Ferraro a whore (repeatedly). That is just beyond belief to me.

    Parent

    AAR, Hufpo, Kos... (none / 0) (#57)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:36:39 PM EST
    They've all been stricken with HDS.  There will never be a decent liberal communication network after this, not one that I can trust.

    Parent
    Ah jeez... (none / 0) (#64)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:41:05 PM EST
    I hope that's not true. What a sad day that would be for America.

    I hope that we Democrats and liberals can begin to gain some perspective on ourselves soon, and come out stronger for it. We have allowed ourselves to be taken over by hatred and unreason, becoming the very people we derided.

    It's tragic, but not irreversible.

    Parent

    KO's topic was how unabashedly not fair (none / 0) (#62)
    by halstoon on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:40:25 PM EST
    Fox's coverage of Sen. Clinton has been. While I understand your desire to pile onto NBC, though they are the same network that airs Tina Fey and SNL's disparaging coverage of Obama, but in this instance you seem to have missed the point. Well, KO's point, at least.

     Rendell should have stuck with the Fox hates Democrats, and NBC looks like Fox to Clinton supporters line. Instead, he sucked up to the most destructive network Democrats know. Bad move.

    And is Obamabots part of the new peace ethic TL has taken up??

    Kinda funny (none / 0) (#65)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:42:02 PM EST
    how every time someone tries to push back against the argument that the media favors Obama over Clinton, the best they can do is bring up SNL.

    Parent
    NBC is anti-Hillary (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:46:24 PM EST
    True or false?

    Parent
    Answer my questiuon first (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:49:43 PM EST
    What part of NBC News is not anti-Hillary in your estimation? As you might know, I have concentrated my fire at NBC.

    Parent
    So you are ignorant on the subjkect (none / 0) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:09:48 PM EST
    Thanks for admitting the obvious.

    I will know to ignore you as before.

    Other obviously should as well as you express ignorant opinions.

    Parent

    I donot attempt to (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:46:38 PM EST
    as I do not need to. That YOU are ignorant of what NBC's coverage has been is your problem. Not mine.

    Parent
    I'm certain I could do better, but (none / 0) (#106)
    by halstoon on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:17:06 PM EST
    SNL was all over the media for 2 weeks after their turn on Obama. Why is it illegitimate to point out that Tina Fey--who strongly endorsed Clinton on live TV--and SNL are affiliated with the one network BTD and other constantly point to in their insistence that "the media" hates Clinton?

    I am certain that a 24/7 look at MSNBC would reveal plenty of shots at Sen. Obama, but that wouldn't change the minds of those who love Sen. Clinton.

    Parent

    The difference (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:21:10 PM EST
    is that SNL is entertainment and the news shows are supposed to be, well, news shows. If an entertainment show unfairly skewers one candidate or another, that doesn't excuse the news personnel from doing the same thing.

    Parent
    Countdown is entertainment built around the news. (none / 0) (#114)
    by halstoon on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:28:06 PM EST
    Brian Williams handles the heavy-lifting on the objective news front. KO is supposed to be funny, biting, interesting, controversial, etc. His is a commentary show, meaning it's all based on Keith's view. He happens to think Obama has established himself as the clear winner; he also has taken issue with the Clintons. That is his business, his view, and what he gets paid to share with the country.

    That BTD does not like his view does not make his whole network a scourge on journalism.

    Parent

    I agree it is entertainment based around news (none / 0) (#116)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:36:09 PM EST
    I think the mixing of entertainment with news is a huge problem though. I think it generally reduces the seriousness of discourse about important issues because it is done for ratings, not to inform. (Although Stewart and Colbert seem to be exceptions to this. They entertain as well as inform.)

    Parent
    Even Stewart and Colbert only give you maybe (none / 0) (#130)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:41:31 AM EST
    2 minutes on something. They'll expose hypocrisy or lunacy rather easily, but no cable news program is really going to tackle an issue.

    I personally like Anderson Cooper b/c his show is consistent; the same ideologues are there, so you know who's who and what to expect, but everybody's represented by someone with decent sense. Cooper does a good job of playing Joe Friday and making people stay on topic. All in all, I think it gives the 'fairest' presentation.

    Parent

    Anyone who watched the debates (none / 0) (#124)
    by hairspray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:05:10 PM EST
    run by Russert, Matthews, and Williams had to see the most influential of their anchors as hostile to Hillary.  At first Olbermann wasn't one of them but that has changed. In addition to the gang of 4 mentioned, there is David Shuster and Andrea Mitchell.  Throw in the other wannabees of Scarborough, and Tucker and often Rachel Maddow and you have a large number of visible antagonists.  Or go to Media Matters and read what they have to say.

    Parent
    You look foolish (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:45:57 PM EST
    defending Olbermannn against Hillary Hate. Seriously, no one will take you seriously after this. I know I won't.

    Parent
    You look foolish when you cite sources (none / 0) (#107)
    by halstoon on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:19:29 PM EST
    that run counter to your argument. I know you could have linked posts to other Clinton venom that Olbermann has spewed, but in this case you mischaracterized his statements and completely missed the point of his rant. You do this semi-regularly, and I simply call you on it when you misread or misinterpret your evidence.

    As for taking me seriously, it won't hurt my feelings one way or the other.

    And you didn't answer my Obamabot question: is this playing nice??

    Parent

    Are you high? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:45:34 PM EST
    The point of my link is to laugh at the stupidity of Olbermann pretending he is not anti-Hillary. The l;ink is not to prove he is. That is acknowledged by any sentient being who is not dishonest.

    My gawd are you really obtuse today.  did you send time at Balloon Juice today? Did the stupid rub off on you?

    Parent

    MSNBC (none / 0) (#73)
    by Robo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:46:39 PM EST
    also has Morning Joe, who (which?) I really enjoy now.  Joe is one of the few who takes up for Hillary.  I'm also enjoying Race to the Whitehouse, especially when Joe is on.

    Parent
    Do you love the way the MSNBC hosts (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:53:37 PM EST
    describe Hillary?

    Tweety in particular has been incredibly vile.

    Parent

    but he is not working for Hillary and making her (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:07:27 PM EST
    case every day like tweety and doberman do every day for Obama !.. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE!!

    Parent
    Doberman, LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:12:10 PM EST
    More like DOUGHberman ;-).  Sorry, couldn't resist.

    Parent
    Or how about (none / 0) (#103)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:13:56 PM EST
    DOH!bermann

    Okay, I'll stop now.

    Parent

    Don't know who (none / 0) (#84)
    by Robo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:56:36 PM EST
    Buffenbarger is.

    Parent
    Oh, thanks! (none / 0) (#93)
    by Robo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:02:10 PM EST
    No need to google, just needed a little hint.

    Parent
    Was the "prissy" comment (none / 0) (#88)
    by Robo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:57:53 PM EST
    about Obama's bowling?  

    Parent
    I did not take that as (none / 0) (#104)
    by Robo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:14:42 PM EST
    a malicious comment.  He was just making fun of Obama.  I enjoy a little levity.  

    Call me crazy, but I have also found some joy in watching Pat Buchanan this year.  There is no need to tell me every horrible thing he's said or done.  I'm only trying to say that there was a short period of time when he just made me smile, even when I did not agree with his comments.  Something seems to have happened to him in the last month, though.  When I do see him, which is not often now, he is not happy, and doesn't make me happy.


    Parent

    Yes, of course. (none / 0) (#112)
    by halstoon on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:24:22 PM EST
    I know MSNBC is not 100% for Obama, but since their primetime star (Olbermann) is, and their heavyweight (Matthews) appears to be (I guess, I don't watch), the whole network--presumably including Brian Williams--is labeled as ObamaTV.

    It's just that people here at TL are highly upset that Sen. Clinton is more and more likely not going to be the president, and, well, frankly, a lot of them had their hearts set on that.
    Since Olbermann likes Obama, that makes him a public enemy here.


    Parent

    What an asinine comment (none / 0) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:43:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Matthews criticised Hillary (none / 0) (#67)
    by BernieO on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:44:15 PM EST
    just yesterday for saying she is a fan of Mick Jagger and impressed by how seriously he takes his work, etc. Tweety commented disgustedly that she managed to make him seem like a wonk.
    This is a good example of just how ridiculous NBC has gotten. That'll teach me for even turning the channel on.

    Jagger is a wonk (none / 0) (#79)
    by rilkefan on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:50:25 PM EST
    isn't he?  He studied at the LSofEc, and re the business model of a band he's reportedly relatively a genius.

    Parent
    yes apparently he does it all (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by english teacher on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:22:16 PM EST
    and is a hands on tour manager and band leader.  not to mention songwriter and performer.  if you have ever been to one of their shows, you know that he is the hardest working man in show business. i'd say genius is a very apt description.

    Parent
    Re. Jagger's limited education in bidness (none / 0) (#92)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:01:13 PM EST
    Rilkefan, Jagger according to Wiki: "Jagger attended the London School of Economics on a scholarship. He studied for a degree in accounting and finance, but attended for less than a year and did not graduate, leaving to pursue a musical career."

    Mick's head for business, would seem to be more intuitive than studied. (I don't know what that says about chris matthews or his comments about Hillary.)

    Parent

    BTD -- Many of my loved ones suffer from CDS... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:45:35 PM EST
    Is there treatment or any known cures?

    One possible cure for HDS... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:52:18 PM EST
    is David Brock's book "Blinded by the Right." Sure opened my eyes.

    Parent
    Brook's book (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Becki Jayne on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:21:41 PM EST
    is a good suggestion. I also read Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler regularly. He has a series of posts in his archive on NBC and Jack Welch's "boys club" that's also eye-opening.

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#113)
    by Becki Jayne on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:24:31 PM EST
    Brock's book.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#85)
    by rilkefan on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:56:41 PM EST
    there's some difference of opinion between us [people who think Obama's a good, very talented candidate but still a pol] and the most enthusiastic Obama supporters about how fair the media treatment of him has been - if one loves him and hates HRC [an unreasonable starting point in my view], it might be reasonable to find the underpinnings of your argument false.

    Maybe, maybe, baby (Joplin not Jagger) (none / 0) (#98)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:05:13 PM EST


    Parent
    On the topic at hand (none / 0) (#99)
    by manys on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:07:11 PM EST
    Using the term "Obamabots" is pretty darn schticky in itself.

    I used to love Steve Benen's blog (none / 0) (#133)
    by g8grl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:16:54 AM EST
    which I will not name here.  But he's gone.  When I read him repeating Obama's lie that Hillary put out the Somali photo it was the last straw.  The commenters on his site are pretty awful.  Considering that it wasn't the big orange machine, I was surprised when no one said anything when a commenter called Hillary the C word.

    Reading Comprehension | 119 comments (119 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment