Scarborough declined to talk to Page Six, but sources say he and NBC anchor Tom Brokaw disagree with MSNBC's decision to position itself as the channel for George W. Bush-haters.

At a forum on Sunday, when Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell called MSNBC "the official network of the Obama campaign," Brokaw said, "I think Keith has gone too far. I think Chris has gone too far."

Insiders say Olbermann is pushing to have Brokaw banned from the network and is also refusing to have centrist Time magazine columnist Mike Murphy on his show.

"The idea of anyone trying to ban Tom Brokaw is ludicrous," said one MSNBC-er.

But Olbermann and Matthews are pretending to be journalists, not Democratic bloggers, aren't they?

Well, I think Olby goes first and when the press does its look back they'll see all the signs are there. They'll say why didnt anyone say something at the time.

"I'm not gonna take any lectures on how to be a good Democrat from two people who spent the last two years relentlessly attacking Bill and Hillary Clinton everyday,"

They're largely playing this Obama cheerleader game so they can convince advertisers that they're a boutique network with a high income demographic.

Zzzzz ...

I think Matthews, especially as the primary wore on, seemed to resent the fact that he actually had to cover the thing.

What's worse, he was pretty overtly sexist.  I do believe you can prefer one candidate over another without resorting to personal attacks.  You can disagree with policy points, etc.  The problem with the primary is that the two candidates were close enough on most major policy points that the pundits took the lazy way out, and started to engage in character assassination and to fan the flames of acrimony.

As a supporter of HRC early on, I was really startled by how willing commentators were to get grossly personal after Iowa.  I don't think that the media ever got over "Clinton fatigue".  

No one is ever going to put HRC high on a list of dynamic speakers.  Nor, frankly, does she radiate warmth.  But she does exude competence.  So, if the conversation was to be about suitability, how her husband's infidelity factored in was a mystery to me.

Obviously, there are some real HRC zealots.  to hold them up as emblematic of Clinton supports is pretty wrongheaded, though.  I will say that Wolfson doesn't seem too concerned about winning the GE.  He falls into the habit of refighting the primary, which isn't productive.  Also, I think his decision to join Fox was appalling.  Hannity?  Fox and Friends?  Hume?  C'mon.  the only person on that network even remotely willing to be positive about HRC was Wallace, and only grudgingly.  

Despite popular expectation,  HRC turned in a great speech last night.  I'm pretty tired of all the parsing...she didn't talk about HIS achievement, etc...I think she struck the right balance, and elegantly.

Bull.

You're deadly accurate in these posts and you definitely speak for me, too, as well, I suspect, as a lot of others here.

With out any watchdogs, what will happen when the government wants to do something really nasty and pushes propaganda. The networks will just go along. Oh wait, that already happened with Iraq.

Also Fox has real liberals on their payroll.  Every panel has at least one real liberal giving that point of view.   Most of them are from NPR for goodness sakes and they throw in some reall crazies as well.

They have positioned themselves overall to be the more right wing network but frankly when the three major networks and CNN MSNBC leaned left there was no demand for another lefty network.

MSNBC has just decided to go in some perverse pro Obama direction that I can't figure out.   I remember BTD talking up Olberman before this election.   Man have times changed.

Why?