Rachel Maddow: The Smartest Voice on Cable

Take a look at two of her segments from tonight's show:

The Rachel Maddow Show airs weeknights on MSNBC following Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann. I would recommend everyone watches it.

Television Journalists and Their Big Push

We all remember how, during the primary season, T.V. journalists piled on Senator Clinton everyday and promoted Senator Obama non-stop.  On the Republican side, they treated Senator McCain and his flip flops with kid gloves.

 

I mentioned during that period of time that if Obama received the Democratic nomination, in time,  journalists would turn on him and promote McCain in the general election.  Well, it is already starting to happen.  They are now promoting a so called rift between Senator Clinton, her husband, and Obama.  They are even saying that Senator Clinton wants her name to be placed in nomination at the convention, although that is pure speculation.  Mike Barnicle, while guest hosting MSNBC's Hardball on 8/7, devoted some time on the subject with 3 guests.  Their tone was that Senator Clinton was going to make demands and split or hurt the party.  What they all failed to report and/or mention is that Senator Clinton herself said that she would work for party unity at the convention and, in fact, campaigned for Senator Obama this week.

 

Journalists will continue to plant the seed that their pronouncements are fact in an effort to create and distract from the actual news on the subject.  They are showing their ass again in trying to manipulate the general election vote in McCain's favor.   Anything to hurt Sen. Obama or portray the Democratic Party weak in any way will be what journalists continue to portray until November.  Hopefully the American people wise up and do their own research in order to inform themselves since journalists can no longer be trusted to do so.  

Andrea Mitchell, You've Made Me Proud

Obama Caves; Clinton Stays Strong

As I've said previously, this FISA Bill did nothing but violate the basic rights of privacy guaranteed to every American in the Constitution.   There was and is no reason to grant the telecom companies immunity for breaking the law.  What's even more disappointing then the fact that so many Senators voted for it, was the fact that Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee for President, caved in to Bush's and the Republican's tactics and voted for the bill.  

Now I've read Obama supporters on the blogs claim that he had to do this.  That if he didn't, Republicans would tear him apart.  Guess what Obama-bots?  You don't beat the Republicans by giving in to their demands.  The "change" that Obama so often talks about will not happen if Democrats allow themselves to be bullied around by Republicans.  

What does make me proud, however, is the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton voted no on this bill.  Sure, Republicans will criticize her for it.  Sure, Republicans will call her weak on national security.  But today, Sen. Clinton actually acted on the words she spoke of during the primary --- standing your ground and taking the fight to the Republicans.  

In this hour, the contrast between the Democratic nominee and the runner-up is clear.  Our nominee, unfortunately, doesn't believe in standing up for and defending Democratic values.  He'd rather appease Republicans and stay as far away from controversy as possible.  The runner-up, however, doesn't worry about what Republicans think or say about her.  She does what she feels is right.  

Even more interesting is the feed-back I'm seeing on the blogs from some people who were highly critical of Sen. Clinton in the primary --- in other words, they bashed her non-stop.  Some, like Sean Casey at the Daily Kos, see Obama and Clinton in a new light.  Here's what Casey wrote:

"Thank you Hillary - I appreciate you standing up for my right of proivacy and the Constitution. I definitely misjudged you. Two months ago I would have bet anything that you would have voted "Yea" and he would have voted "Nea". Sincerely - Thank You - and those who voted NEA with you.

Change we can believe in? It's a change, but not the one I expected. WOW!"

Now, with all this said, let me be clear: I still unequivocally support Sen. Obama for President.  Even though I believe he was totally unjustified in his lack of courage to stand up to Republicans today, he would still be a much, much better President than Senator McCain, who apparently feels free from even showing up to vote --- for anything.  

In conclusion, I leave you with the video of Senator Russ Feingold talking with Rachel Maddow tonight on MSNBC concerning the FISA Bill, why he opposed it, and how he feels about Democrats, including Sen. Obama, not standing up to the Republicans:

Remembering Tim Russert

I was shocked, needless to say, to hear of the untimely passing of Tim Russert this afternoon.  Tim contributed so much to the national discussion regarding politics and policy and he will be deeply missed.

Looking back and reflecting on Tim and his work, many things come to mind.  For one, I didn't always like him.  I despised him for being so tough with Hillary during her appearances. But at the same time, I was glued to the television, with a grin on my face, whenever he took the Republicans to task.  Looking back, Tim was being tough with Hillary, but he was also as tough with all his other guests.  Tim didn't play favorites.  He didn't take sides.  Was he a Republican?  Was he a Democrat?  I don't know and I don't think anyone does.  

In fact, I often heard my Democrat friends complain that Russert was a blatant Republican.  At the same time, if you ever checked out any of the conservative blogs, they were constantly claiming Russert was an out of control liberal.  I suppose thats when you know a journalist is truly doing their job --- not when one side loves you and the other hates you, not even when both sides love and praise you, but when both sides think you're playing for the opposite team.  

When Sunday would role around, there was only one Sunday show I was interested in seeing: Meet the Press.  The frequent hour long interviews with only one commercial interruption were unprecedented and truly covered all the bases.  

And although one couldn't tell what political affiliation Russert had, one could clearly tell one thing: Tim Russert loved politics.  Whenever he talked about politics, Russert's face lit up.  His level of excitement exceeded that of the proverbial "kid in a candy store".  

And the work Russert put in was also unbelievable.  He was on MSNBC's Morning Joe almost every day.  Then you could catch him just an hour later discussing politics with Meredith and Matt on the Today Show.  A few hours later he would be anchoring an hour of news coverage on MSNBC.  In another few hours, he was talking politics with Brian Williams on Nightly News.  He would then be a guest on Hardball or Countdown.  On Saturday, Russert hosted the hour long Tim Russert Show on MSNBC and then on Sunday it was Meet the Press on NBC.  No one worked harder.  And it's not as if Russert had to work like that either; he chose to.  As Vice-President of NBC news, Russert didn't have to do a damn thing: he chose to, though, because he loved politics and he loved sharing his passion with the American people.   

Finally, I just want to talk about Russert's influence on me, an influence I don't think I fully until tonight.  Tim would often, on Meet the Press, read a quote that his guest made in the past and then compare and contrast it with the same guest's most recent statements and positions.  Looking back, I did the same thing many times here.  It was just while reflecting on Tim that I came to realize this.  

In conclusion, I just want to extend my heart and prayers to the Russert family.  Tim Russert will always be remembered and will be sorely missed.  

Breaking News Concerning MSNBC Anchors

Besides the fact that I personally will never watch MSNBC for election coverage again, considering Olbermann's constant whining and bad mouthing of Hillary Clinton, her supporters, anyone who offers even semi-positive analysis of her campaign, or anyone who utters one thing that could be construed as a tiny bit critical of Obama, Taylor Marsh, over at her blog, is breaking some news concerning Olbermann and the MSNBC crew:

____________________________________________________________

Keith Olbermann just broke down in tears.

Russert went running from the building.

Chris Matthews can't feel his legs.

UPDATE: Breaking... Keith just stopped crying, and Russert just ran back into the building. They're now tag teaming on numbers and every time a new number comes up Keith pleads this is the number that will push Hillary out. Uh-oh... What's this? Keith just fled from the set screaming... Russert is now talking to Matthews. Stay tuned... ...

Clinton Wins PA; Race Rolls On

Here's food for thought: What does it say when you out spend your opponent 3 to 1... and still lose?  What does it say when the media has already anointed you the nominee and has counted out your opponent for over two months now...and you still lose?  What does it say when you've been given numerous opportunities to put your opponent away (New Hampshire, Nevada, California, Ohio, Texas, and now Pennsylvania)...and you lose every time?  

Does anyone ever stop and ask themselves the above questions?  Seriously, Obama had everything going for him --- money, time, the media --- and he still can't put Hillary Clinton away.  Regardless of the final margin of victory for Clinton in Pennsylvania, the fact that she still won, despite all the odds, is a real testament to her strength as a candidate (or is it Obama's lack of strength).

And now the race moves on to Indiana and North Carolina.  Obama will win North Carolina, and he should do so extremely conformably.  The true battle ground is now Indiana.  Again, Obama has all the advantages---money, time, media, and he's from a neighboring state.  Harold Ford Jr., a high ranking Democratic Party official, really had a great take on the Indiana primary on MSNBC just a few minutes ago.  He pointed out that Obama needs to win it --- not because he needs the delegates or the popular votes, but rather as a matter to show that he can still win in states that are not his "base" states.  North Carolina is an Obama base state, as is Oregon.  The same can be said about Kentucky and West Virginia for Clinton.  But, as Ford alluded to, Indiana is, more or less, neutral territory.  The question will be answered, based on the Indiana results, if Obama is limited to his base states.  If he can't win Indiana, Ford analyzed that it is a bad sign for Obama in the eyes of the undecided superdelegates, and I agree.  Exactly how much time, money, and states does Obama need to put Clinton away?  If he can't do it in Indiana, he can't do it --- period.  

So, in conclusion, I would like to congratulate Sen. Clinton on her hard fought victory in Pennsylvania.  Tomorrow, it's on to Indiana, and then on May 6, this all begins again.

(P.S.: Clinton agreed to debate in North Carolina; Obama rejected.  Is he scared?  Obviously so.)

Abrams and Gregory's New Shows: A Quick Review

Today was the debut of David Gregory's new show on MSNBC, Race for the White House.  In essence, the show features 6 segments discussed over by a 4 member panel.  Tonight's panel was great, with Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, Eugene Robinson, and Chuck Todd offering their opinions and views. Okay, maybe Robinson and Todd are no good, but I hope Maddow and Scarborough remain regulars, as both got into several heated arguments with each other that were both highly substantive and highly entertaining.  

The biggest surprise for me, however, was how well David Gregory fit into his new role as host.  Think of him as a more lively, more personable Tim Russert, or a less lively, less opinionated Dan Abrams.  As long as the panelists stay as good and the segments stay as lively as they were today, Race for the White House could prove to be a huge success for MSNBC. 

Verdict with Dan Abrams also debuted tonight.  Nothing much to note here, as Verdict pretty much follows the same format as Abram's old self titled show, but again I must say that I love the "On Their Trail" segment. Abrams, although he blatantly injects his opinion into topics, is never tilted towards one candidate, or for that matter, one ideology, over the other. On one issue he might agree with Obama; the next McCain; the next Clinton.  It's just really refreshing to get commentary without a clear bias behind them.  

With that being said, I encourage all of you to check out MSNBC's new primetime lineup.  Gregory's show looks very promising, Matthew's is getting better, and Abrams continues to "tell it as he sees it".  (The only downside is the none-stop bias of Keith Olbermann, formerly the best MSNBC host.)  

My Special Comment To Keith Olbermann

Keith, you have crossed the line.  Gone are the days of you being a commentator who provided an alternative to Fox News.  You have now become just another Bill O’Reilly---someone so obsessed with himself and his ego that he must go after individual politicians who he personally dislikes.

Keith, you say that you don’t endorse Barack Obama.  Exactly who do you think you’re kidding?  For the past 2 months, you have gone after Sen. Clinton night after night while providing glowing commentary on Obama.  Your disdain for the Clintons is evident and your love for Barack Obama is well-known.

Keith, you indeed  need to apologize to Sen. Clinton.  You, last night, implied that she is a racist and compared her to David Duke.  That is absolutely disgusting.  The Clintons have done more for the African American community than any other politican in the last 35 years.

Secondly Keith, you and everyone else in the media should be ashamed by the way you've spun Geraldine Ferraro's comments.  Did you bother to read them?  Did you bother to look at the facts on which Ferraro based her remarks?  Why do you think Obama has done so well in South Carolina, in Georgia, in Alabama, in Louisiana, in Mississippi?  What do you think proved to be the deciding factor in the extremely close primary in Missouri?  I’ll tell you Keith: the African American vote. 

Why is it suddenly taboo to say the truth?  Is it that you truly think that Obama, if he weren’t African American, would get 85-90% of the black vote?  Are you that blind Keith?  

It’s not that I or Ferraro, as she has explained, finds any fault nor is it degrading for African Americans to vote for their own.  I, as many, understand the pride African Americans must have voting for one of their own.  As do women concerning Sen. Clinton.  Is it racist to say that the only reason Obama is getting such a large chunk of black votes is because he himself is black?  Is it racist to say that Obama would have not likely won South Carolina, Missouri, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi if he were indeed white?  Of course it isn’t.  It’s not that Obama has a message that is so overly appealing to African Americans as compared to Sen. Clinton's.  

Again, I stress that it is not a bad thing for African Americans to vote for Obama.  But, Keith, it is a bad thing, no, a horrible thing, for you to say that anyone who says what I've just said is racist.

No one has said that the only reason Obama is where he is is because he is black.  But it is undeniably one factor.  We shouldn’t be so politically correct and censored that we can’t say that.  Obama has run a terrific campaign.  He is a great speaker.  He has energized people of all races, men and women.  But he has won many contests because he is black.  That is a fact backed up by the exit polls.

So, Keith, get off Ferraro’s back for stating the truth that others are simply afraid to say.  I'm not sure why they're afriad, since she didn’t say anything degrading or anything to belittle Obama, but whatever.  She simply stated her analysis---which happens to be backed up by the exit polls.

And lastly, Keith, you say that Clinton is dividing the party?  Excuse me?  Who injected race into the battle for South Carolina when his campaign released memos accusing the Clintons of racism?  Who dug up this Ferraro comment?  Who refused to rise above the fray and won’t let this harmless story rest?  Who has spun this quote from Ferraro from a simple analysis of the race at hand, into a sign of racism?  You know the answer Keith---the Obama campaign.

And you, by posting your disgusting special comment and continuing your daily bias coverage of this campaign, are dividing this great party.  

Not only should you apologize, but you should be removed from MSNBC’s election night coverage.  You have let your personal opinions get in the way of what you’re supposed to be doing---covering a particular election.

I once though you were going to bring a voice for progressives to the world of cable news, but instead you brought a voice for one candidate----Barack Obama.  You have implied, as recently as last night, that Clinton should not be considered a Democrat and neither should her supporters.  Well, Keith, I am a Clinton supporter and I am a Democrat.  What are you, though, Keith?  I’ll tell you: just another pundit who can’t give fair coverage or analysis of anyone or anything for anything.  If it doesn’t help your candidate, Barack Obama, it doesn’t get on your show.  But if it does help him, you’ll spend days on it.  

My request: stop thinking and reporting as if only Barack Obama is right on everything and everyone else is scum.  Hillary Clinton is not scum.  Bill Clinton is not scum.  Geraldine Ferraro is not scum.  For that matter, Barack Obama is not scum. But you, Keith, might just be.---

Keith Olbermann: today’s worst person in the world!!!

MSNBC's New Line-up & A Review Of Their Current One

MSNBC will be changing up it's line-up as of next Monday.  Tucker Carlson's show will be getting the ax, replaced by a show hosted by David Gregory.  Andrea Mitchell will now be anchoring the news everyday from 1-2 p.m.  Live with Dan Abrams will be undergoing a name change.  Other than that, MSNBC's current programing line-up will, for the most part, stay in tact. With that said, he are my hopes and reviews of the current and future programming on MSNBC.

Morning Joe

I start off every morning watching Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on Morning Joe.  Despite my opposing views with Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, I must say, I do enjoy the show.  They usually have a great variety of guests on the show and the exchanges between conservative Scarborough and liberal Brzezinski are priceless.  The one thing I must complain about, however, is Brzezinski's new found bias for Barack Obama.  I enjoyed the show, and her, much more when she was simply the liberal and Scarborough was simply the conservative and broad topics were discussed in relationship to the two parties.  Now, Brzezinski finds a way to make everything about Obama, even if the topic does not involve him or his campaign.  You get the feeling she is pushing him down your throats, and after a while, it gets really old.

MSNBC Daytime News

Not much to say here.  I don't hate MSNBC news, nor do I love it.  Truthfully, the only time I actually find myself tuning in to MSNBC daytime is when it's what they call "Super Tuesday", their all day political coverage, which is actually quite good.

Hardball

I used to be repulsed at Chris Matthews and his blatant bias, but he has been getting better.  He rarely takes sides any more in arguments and debates, and thats a huge improvement  And when you tone down Matthews' bias and listen to what this man actually has to say, you realize that he is a fascinating guy who knows more than most will ever know about politics.  For that reason, I have once again found myself a fan of Hardball, and if Matthews keeps behaving the way he is now, I will remain a fan.  It's so much nicer to hear Chris give his insights and analysis of politics in general and it's mechanics, rather than gushing over one candidate while constantly demeaning and degrading the other.  

Countdown

Keith Olbermann, to say it simply, has become the liberal Bill O'Reilly.  Keith used to be objective and would offer a straight forward analysis of the top stories of the day based on facts.  Now, it's the Keith loves Barack show.  Keith has recently, in essence, accused everyone who supports Sen. Clinton of being a racist and a Republican in disguise.  He appears amazed every night that the entire nation doesn't bow down and worship Obama as he has apparently become accustomed to.  And some would say that the "liberal Bill O'Reilly" is exactly what the Democratic party needs.  I counter by saying absolutely not. We need someone in the media who doesn't take the side of one candidate over the other, but rather challenges the conventional wisdom.  Keith used to be that person.  But now, he has let his ego get the best of him.  His show has become more focused on attacking the Clintons and tearing down their supporters than anything else.  The vibe Keith now puts out, rather than standing up to convention wisdom, is that you're only right; you're only a Democrat; you're only an America if you love Barack Obama and hate Hillary Clinton.  It has become painful to watch Olbermann degenerate as he has.  He used to be the best on MSNBC; now he's the worst.  

Live with Dan Abrams

Starting on Monday, Live with Dan Abrams will become Verdict with Dan Abrams.  Hopefully, despite the name change, the show will stay the same since Dan is now my top guy to watch on MSNBC.  Why?  Because, when I watch him, I feel like I'm actually getting a fair, balanced view-point, without any political bias.  His "On Their Trail" segment is one of the best in television.  He takes on Obama as much as he does Clinton and vice-versa.  And although I don't always agree with his calls on who's right and who's wrong, I will admit that he calls them as he sees them.  Many nights Obama has come away with more "X's" than Clinton and vice-versa.  Also, his two most frequent guests, Pat Buchanan and Rachel Maddow, also make for great television as they argue and debate the issues.  I just hope that with the new name, Abrams keeps up his fairness and objectivity.  It does this country a great deal.

Tucker

Thank god Tucker got canceled.  Admittedly, Tucker's show was good at times, but only good when he had a good panel on to access the day's political headlines.  Tucker Carlson himself added nothing substantive to the show.  The show was only good if the panelists made it good.  And although the key to any good political show is a good variety of guests, the host has to bring something to the table as well.  Tucker didn't.  Let's hope his successor does.

Race to the White House

Yup, thats the name of the show, hosted by David Gregory, that will succeed Tucker.  I'm interested to see how Gregory will do.  Will Race to the White House be a more serious toned show, like Meet the Press, or more loose and free formed like Hardball and Live with Dan Abrams? I'm not sure, but I would be happy with either.  The political junkie in me loves the serious toned, old school political discussions (even though I'm quite young) that take place on Meet the Press and like shows, but I also love the arguments and heated exchanges that are allowed to develop on the more free-formed shows.  I will say that they probably could have found a better host if they were going for a free-formed show, such as picking Rachel Maddow or Pat Buchanan. If it's a serious toned political discussion type show, Gregory should do well.  

On a side note: I'm still begging for MSNBC to get a Crossfire-like program with two hosts from opposing political views. They need to have a Buchanan vs. Maddow show. That would be gold.  But until then, we get David Gregory.  I hope he does good, but honestly, it's not as if Tucker set the bar all that high.  

Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island: 3 Out of 4 Isn't So Bad

Senator Clinton's victory in the above states have set the stage for the final showdown for the Democratic nomination going into these final primaries. 

 

It was not only a great win for Senator Clinton, but a great win for the American people, because these victories proved talking about the issues and solutions were more important to the country than a message of change that has yet to be defined.  Senator Clinton has talked about the issues and what she would do if elected President since day one.  

 

Journalists and pundits on MSNBC, Fox News, and some on CNN were openly talking about Clinton dropping out the race after the primaries Tuesday night.  They did not even give her a chance and were openly supporting and pushing her opponent.  Mike Barnacle said on Morning Joe this past week that journalists should not be in the business of urging candidates to drop out.  Rather, they should stick to their jobs of reporting the news.  He is so right, but journalists as a whole will never change.  Just remember Yogi Berra's golden rule, " It ain't over till its over".

 

This has been a great Democratic race and there should be no rush to conclusion just because the Republican nominee is already chosen.  The people have a right to have their voice heard and when the general election rolls around, the Democratic nominee will be strong and prevail.

 

Lets see how television journalists handle the rest of the Democratic primaries.  I will be willing to bet their presentations will continue to be negative concerning Senator Clinton. 

The Daily Dose---2/27

The Final Debate

I must say, I really did enjoy last night's debate.  I though the questions that NBC prepared were much more substantive and diverse than those picked out by CNN last week.  It's those questions that ordinary people don't think much about---like Kosovo, and Putin's successor---that really say a lot about the candidates running for office.  No offense meant to Sen. Clinton or Obama, but how much skill does it take to debate Iraq or healthcare these days?  They have debated them 100 times before and I think the American people get where they stand.  But these unexpected questions, which highlight the challenges facing the next President, give us a great insight into these candidates' minds.  One thing I will note, and maybe it's just me, but when Tim Russert asked about Putin's successors, he did, in fact, ask it openly---giving both Sen. Clinton and Obama a chance to jump at the question and answer it first.  The look on Obama's face said it all---he didn't have an answer, or, atleast, a decent one.  Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, paused, and then, dare I say, when Obama didn't answer, came to his rescue.  Now, if I was in Sen. Clinton's shoes, I would have said something like, "I think we should let Sen. Obama answer."  But she didn't, she took the question and then allowed Obama to, in essence, copy her answer, almost exactly, and pass it off as his own.  That could have been the moment where Obama slowed his momentum, not being able to answer a very important foreign policy question.  But she chose to help him...make of that what you will, but I find it interesting to say the least and I'm surprised the MSM hasn't picked up on it.  Other than that, the debate was, as I said, very substantive and very formal.  I thought that both Sen. Clinton and Obama performed well and both, I can confidently say, would beat McCain in a debate this fall.  

For Once, I Have Something Nice to Say...to a Republican

Yep, that's right, but I must warn you, don't get used to it.  I just want to take this time though to commend Sen. John McCain for decrying the actions and words of Bill Cummingham, a conservative radio host, who had some less than appropriate things to say about Barack Obama.  I just hope that McCain keeps his attacks up on those who engage in these type of tactics.  They are completely unnecessary and McCain needs to keep up the pressure on them.  Let's have a clean campaign based on the issues and facts at hand, not dirty tricks and falsehoods.   

Speaking of Dirty Tricks...

I'm really get sick and tired of this whole Barack "Hussein" Obama and Muslim thing.  Number one, Barack Obama is not a Muslim.  Number two though, it shouldn't matter if he was?  Seriously, does someone have to be a white, male Christian with a simple 1-2 syllable name to be President?  Maybe America should just focus on electing the right person for the job, regardless of gender, race, religion, or anything else.  Sure, Obama isn't a Muslim, but the religious right is practically insulting every person who isn't a Christian, essentially saying that they're unqualified for public office.  What's that document that says there shall be no religious test for office?  O, yea, that's right, it's the U.S. Constitution, the document our entire democracy is founded on.  Maybe the Republicans should take a look at it once and a while.  With that being said, this is my request for the religious right (even though they couldn't care less): 1) Stop lying about Barack Obama's faith and 2) stop demeaning people who might not follow the Christian faith----news flash: there's nothing wrong with that.  

MSNBC---Becoming the Next Fox News?

I have commented in the past how certain people in the main-stream media try to pass their individual opinions off as fact and distort what people say in order to push their own ideology in an attempt to influence the American people.  The nation is already well aware of the neocons at Fox News, who revel in their own schemes.

 

Now we find out, during this Presidential primary season, that MSNBC's Chris Mathews and Keith Olberman have been emulating the Fox News crew in trying to shape people's opinion concerning the candidates who are seeking their party's nomination.  It is growing more and more obvious concerning the Democratic candidates.  They have already chosen sides and stack the news with inaccurate and one-sided stories about the candidate they have decided is not worthy of their party's nomination. 

 

Many of their journalist friends, who appear on their shows as guests, just go with the flow of the host and offer nothing in the form of true journalism or an opinion of their own.  Facts and truth have escaped Mathews and Olberman.  Their time is spent wallowing in their own vomit and their chosen candidate.

 

David Shuster has been suspended because of a crude remark he made concerning a candidate's daughter, instead of living up to his responsibility as a news journalist.  Olberman had to apologize on air not to long ago for an inaccurate quote, and Mathews has had to do the same thing.  If MSNBC had any respect for the people's right to know the facts, they would order Olberman to put himself, Mathews, and Shuster on the screen next time he shows the segment dealing with the world's worse, worser, and worst.  These 3 supposed journalists have no shame.  MSNBC needs to step up to the plate and provide the American public with fair and balanced coverage of this election so that the American people can make an educated vote concerning whom our next President will be.  

Isn't This A Problem?

Pollsters, Journalists, and Pundits...Oh My!

Pollsters in the past have generally been accurate in their political forecasts, so what happened in the New Hampshire Primary this past Tuesday?  The New York Times reported many pollsters and news organizations plunged into a post-mortem of how they did not see what was coming.

 

What happened was very simple.  The pollsters, journalists, and pundits were pushing Obama, especially after the Iowa caucuses.  Obama was their candidate and they went to great length to talk him up and great length to knock Clinton down.  The polls just prior to the New Hampshire primary showed Obama with a lead, a sure indication that something was wrong and the pollsters knew it but the game was on for Obama.  T.V. journalists were the worst.  Obama received most of their air time and then used their programs to knock Clinton.  The worst was Chris Matthews of MSNBC.  He attacked Clinton daily because she was campaigning and would not come on his show.  He really showed his ass.  The big baby could not get his way so he tried to get even.

 

CNN, on the night of the returns, had William Bennett and Ralph Reed on to offer commentary.  Those two neocons represent the worst in politics, but there they were for all Americans to see.  CNN has no shame.  That shows just how far T.V. will go to try and intimidate the people.  T.V. journalists represent the worse when it comes to broadcasting the facts.  They are the same ones who promoted the Iraq War  and the WMD that we now know did not exist.  And they were the ones hyping war with Iran until the recent NIE report came.

 

The best thing for people to do is tune the cable news networks out and just watch the 30 minute evening news of ABC, CBS ,and NBC.  Shows like Meet the Press and Face the Nation are copying off the cable news networks and are also pushing their favorite candidates.  Their questions tell the real story. 

 

Many pollsters and journalists undermine America and its people with their outright lies.  Once they pick out their favorite, they gear their questions to flatter that person.  They really are a sad bunch.  They remind me a lot of Bush---they have no character or ethics, and they are determined to continue to mislead the people and the country. 

POLITIDOSE's Beat The Press

I am pleased to introduce POLITIDOSE's new periodical version of  "Meet the Press".  From time to time, I will be taking a look at some of the stupidest, most outrageous, and most biased personalities in the media.  In today's edition, may I present to you, the sexist, the obviously biased, and the just plain crazy, Chris Matthews, who is now on my list as one of the biggest @$$es in the media.

Now, I don't necessarily agree that Matthews is the cause for the Clinton New Hampshire win; I think the hard work and dedication of Clinton and her supporters is what led to her win.  But, as Rachel Maddow told Matthews to his face, Chris Matthews has had and continues to have a flagrant biased towards Obama and strongly against Clinton: 

And, if Chris Matthew's biased towards Obama and against Clinton wasn't clear enough yet, look at this shortened video where Matthews compares Obama to Lawrence of Arabia.  This man is insane:

And what does Matthews do to guests he disagrees with? He yells at them:

And then, of course, is the near-orgasmic outburst from Matthews after Obama wins Iowa, saying that his win was "the deliverance" in the "biblical" sense of the word:

And here is Cenk Uygur, directly taking on Chris Matthew's apparent hate for Hillary Clinton, citing quotes from Matthews over the last 3 months:

And here is the final video where Hillary herself confronts Matthews and rightfully calls him "obsessed" with her. Matthews than proceeds to whine that, "I'm not obsessed". Yea, right Chris. O, and by the way, what the hell was Chris looking at around the :35 mark?

Hillary Still Strong

The media, as of late, has been really hitting Sen. Clinton hard and presenting only one side of a very complex story.  But I'm not into the game of "blame it all on the media".  Rather, I like to look for facts, and quite frankly, the facts show that Hillary is still a very strong candidate, both nationally and in the early states.  The media has been highly critical of the Clinton campaign, focusing on what they want you to think is a huge, sudden downfall for her in the polls.  The polls that show Hillary looking strong are all but forgotten.  So here is the most up to date polling available and, as you'll see, Hillary isn't in all that bad of shape after all.

First, let's take a look at the national race.  The two national polls that keep being shown over and over again on CNN and MSNBC are the two that show Obama very close to Hillary.  A Hotline poll from 12/10-14 has Obama trailing Clinton by just 5 points, while a Zogby poll has Obama just 8 points behind.  But here are the polls that aren't getting play, mainly because they don't make for as interesting of a story.  The very latest poll from Fox (12/18-19) has Clinton with a staggering 29 point lead over Obama.  An ABC poll from earlier this month has Clinton with a 30 point lead.  A NBC poll conducted just this past week has Clinton with a 24 point lead.  As you can see, Clinton's national lead is still strong.  Her peak was 30 points over Obama back in October.  Still, despite what the media would have you think, that lead is still very much in place.

Next up is Iowa.  Just today I heard talk on CNN and MSNBC about how dangerous Clinton is to coming in a distant third in Iowa and how horrible she is doing there.  Here is a fact: the last 3 out of 4 polls from Iowa have Clinton in the lead.  The American Research Group and Rasmussen give Clinton a 4 point lead.  CNN gives her a 2 point lead (interesting how CNN doesn't even report on their own poll).  Real Clear Politics, a great website that averages recent polling, indicates that Obama and Clinton are tied in Iowa with 28.3% each.  Does Clinton have Iowa locked-up?  Of course not.  But she is certainly doing better than the media lets out.

Another poll which has been given a ton of airplay today is the USA Today/Gallup poll from New Hampshire which shows Clinton and Obama tied.  What the media fails to mention is another poll which was conducted during the same time frame as the Gallup poll and gives Clinton a 14 point lead.  The latest CNN and Fox polls give her a 12 and 9 point lead respectively.  Real Clear Politics averages that Clinton has a 6.2 point lead; certainly not great, but far from horrible.

Clinton may not be at her peak, but no one realistically expected that she would be right now.  It is a historical fact that the closer to the primaries a Presidential election gets, particularly on the Democratic side, the more the race tightens.  Again, my point in writing this is not to attack the media, but rather to get the other side of the story out there.  It seems that over the last few months the MSM has turned violently against Clinton and is doing everything possible to pump up Barack Obama.  But facts are facts.  This is a very close race, but Clinton is still the frontrunner and is either winning or tying for first when you average the most recent data.   

Can't People Take A Joke?

The media has gone crazy in recent days over a statement that the Clinton campaign released about Barack Obama wanting to be President even when he was in kindergarten. In all seriousness, can people not recognize a joke when they see one? Have we really become so stiff that when a campaign makes a joke, we can't just laugh at it and move on, but rather spin it into something its not? Aren't there more important things for the media to cover than this? After watching yesterday and today's lineup on CNN and MSNBC, that statement made by the Clinton campaign has gotten more analysis and air time than the intelligence report saying that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.

In all honesty, you don't even have to be a Clinton supporter to admit that there is something wrong with that. Since when has a joke become more important than actual hard news? Is that what America and its media is coming to---where a joke has to be spun into some sort of scandalous controversy? Criticize Sen. Clinton on her policies as much as you want; thats fair game, but stop spinning every little thing that comes out her mouth into a scandal. And that doesn't just go for Sen. Clinton, that goes for any candidate. The American people have a right to know the truth about a candidate and what he or she says. Today, however, thats not happening because the media is just looking for a big story. And when they don't have a big story, or at least don't think they have one, they make one up. Thats exactly what they did here and this isn't the first time. It has happened to other candidates too and its time to stop.

The battle for prime time: a Review of cable opinions shows

The top 3 cable news channels all have their pluses and their downs. Then there is Fox News, or as Keith Olberman and myself like to say, Faux Noise. Here is my reviews of their prime time opinion shows and the network overall.

-CNN: CNN itself doesn't really have an "opinion" show, but rather shows that have guests who talk their opinion. Their best program has to be the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. Its features quick segments on the top news stories of the day while also featuring segments where political experts such as Carville, Huffington, Crowley, and more give their views on the hottest political news. Lou Dobbs is a terribly boring host. To be honest I could never watch his show for more than 5 minutes. Speaking of boring, Larry King needs to retire. His show brings nothing to CNN. While his interviews used to be sharp and crisp, he rarely follows up on anything his guests say and to top it all off, he rarely remembers their name. Then is Anderson Cooper. While an okay host, again he just doesn't add any spice to the mix. His monotone voice and needless stories just aren't what today's audience needs. CNN is like the CBS evening news, obviously catering to the older, traditional crowd.

-Headline Prime: Well there are really only two opinion shows on Headline Prime. Glen Beck is a bumbling right-wing idiot who sucks up to the base of his party like no one else's business. I'm surprised he hasn't been offered a contract by Faux Noise. His fear tactics are right in line with those of the GOP, in fact, a few months ago he and his guests talked about this current Iraq/Iran conflict causing the end of the world if we aren't careful. Than there's Nancy "Good Night Friend" Grace. What can I say about her? Comedy, pure comedy. Good for a laugh. Especially her frequent guest Susan "I rhyme everything I say" Moss. I would assume these two shows appeal to crazies.

-Speaking of crazy, we have Faux Noise. To be honest its kind of hard for me to review them based on opinions, because there is no opinion with them. Its "I'm right, you're wrong". Its right-wing bias taken to the extreme. And the kind of Faux Noise...the "Worst Person in the World" himself, Bill O. I really don't know how people watch this and make this the #1 "news" channel.

-Then there is the fastest growing news channel, MSNBC, my personal favorite. It has opinion shows, yet has diverse opinions. Tucker Carlson provides the conservative view. Chris Matthews provides the moderate view, and Keith Olberman gives his liberal opinions. Its a good mix and not to mention there is even further diversified opinions within the shows. Tucker usually features one republican and one democrat on the panel. Hardball with Chris Matthews has the daily Hardball Debate between a democrat and republican, similar to the crossfire days, and Countdown with Keith Olberman usually has all moderate guests, some leaning right, others leaning left. And then we have Dan Abrams, the male Nancy Grace. Easily MSNBC's worst show, they should give Allison Stewart or David Shuster their own show in that slot.

So the verdict:
1) MSNBC for its diverse opinions and sharp, energetic, and passionate commentators.
2) CNN by default. Not as bad as the following two, and if you like more calm, traditional shows, then CNN is for you.
3) Headline Prime's Glen Beck is enough to make this network go sour quickly, add in Nancy Grace and you have a network
thats would finish last on this countdown if I didn't have to rank Faux Noise.
4) Faux Noise, the reason should be clear.