Discussion: MSNBC And Other Left-Leaning Media Outlets

[SuperT]

This is a thread meant for the discussion of left-leaning media outlets. MSNBC. The New York Times. Etc.



MSNBC Takes Incendiary Hosts From Anchor Seat
By BRIAN STELTER

MSNBC tried a bold experiment this year by putting two politically incendiary hosts, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, in the anchor chair to lead the cable news channel's coverage of the election.

That experiment appears to be over.

After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregory would anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.

The change - which comes in the home stretch of the long election cycle - is a direct result of tensions associated with the channel's perceived shift to the political left.

"The most disappointing shift is to see the partisan attitude move from prime time into what's supposed to be straight news programming," said Davidson Goldin, formerly the editorial director of MSNBC and a co-founder of the reputation management firm DolceGoldin.

Executives at the channel's parent company, NBC Universal, had high hopes for MSNBC's coverage of the political conventions. Instead, the coverage frequently descended into on-air squabbles between the anchors, embarrassing some workers at NBC's news division, and quite possibly alienating viewers. Although MSNBC nearly doubled its total audience compared with the 2004 conventions, its competitive position did not improve, as it remained in last place among the broadcast and cable news networks. In prime time, the channel averaged 2.2 million viewers during the Democratic convention and 1.7 million viewers during the Republican convention.

The success of the Fox News Channel in the past decade along with the growth of political blogs have convinced many media companies that provocative commentary attracts viewers and lures Web browsers more than straight news delivered dispassionately.

"In a rapidly changing media environment, this is the great philosophical debate," Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, said in a telephone interview Saturday. Fighting the ratings game, he added, "the bottom line is that we're experiencing incredible success."

But as the past two weeks have shown, that success has a downside. When the vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin lamented media bias during her speech, attendees of the Republican convention loudly chanted "NBC."

In interviews, 10 current and former staff members said that long-simmering tensions between MSNBC and NBC reached a boiling point during the conventions. "MSNBC is behaving like a heroin addict," one senior staff member observed. "They're living from fix to fix and swearing they'll go into rehab the next week."

The employee, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity because the network does not permit it people to speak to the media without authorization. (The New York Times and NBC News have a content-sharing arrangement exclusively for political coverage.)

Mr. Olbermann, a 49-year-old former sportscaster, has become the face of the more aggressive MSNBC, and the lightning rod for much of the criticism. His program "Countdown," now a liberal institution, was created by Mr. Olbermann in 2003 but it found its voice in his gnawing dissent regarding the Bush administration, often in the form of "special comment" segments.

As Mr. Olbermann raised his voice, his ratings rose as well, and he now reaches more than one million viewers a night, a higher television rating than any other show in the troubled 12-year history of the network. As a result, his identity largely defines MSNBC. "They have banked the entirety of the network on Keith Olbermann," one employee said.

In January, Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews, the host of "Hardball," began co-anchoring primary night coverage, drawing an audience that enjoyed the pair's "SportsCenter"-style show. While some critics argued that the assignment was akin to having the Fox News commentator Bill O'Reillyanchor on election night - something that has never happened - MSNBC insisted that Mr. Olbermann knew the difference between news and commentary.

But in the past two weeks, that line has been blurred. On the final night of the Republican convention, after MSNBC televised the party's video "tribute to the victims of 9/11," including graphic footage of the World Trade Center attacks, Mr. Olbermann abruptly took off his journalistic hat.

"I'm sorry, it's necessary to say this," he began. After saying that the video had exploited the memories of the dead, he directly apologized to viewers who were offended. Then, sounding like a network executive, he said it was "probably not appropriate to be shown."

In an interview on Sunday, Mr. Olbermann said that moment - and the perception that he is "not utterly neutral" - restarted months-old conversations about his role on political nights.

"I found it ironic and instructive that I could have easily said exactly what I did say, exactly when I did say it, if I had been wearing a different hat, and nobody would have taken any issue," he said.

"Countdown" will still be shown before the three fall debates and a second edition will be shown sometime afterwards, following the program anchored by Mr. Gregory.

The change casts new doubt on what some staff members believe is an effective programming strategy: prime-time talk of a liberal sort. A like-minded talk show will now follow "Countdown" at 9 p.m.: "The Rachel Maddow Show," hosted by the liberal radio host, begins Monday.

Mr. Griffin, MSNBC's president, denies that it has an ideology. "I think ideology means we think one way, and we don't," he said. Rather than label MSNBC's prime time as left-leaning, he says it has passion and point of view.

But MSNBC is the cable arm of NBC News, the dispassionate news division of NBC Universal. MSNBC, "Today" and "NBC Nightly News" share some staff members, workspace and content. And some critics are claiming they also share a political affiliation.

The McCain campaign has filed letters of complaint to the news division about its coverage and openly tied MSNBC to it. Tension between the network and the campaign hit an apex the day Mr. McCain announced Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. MSNBC had reported Friday morning that Ms. Palin's plane was enroute to the announcement and she was likely the pick. But McCain campaign officials warned the network off, with one official going so far as to say that all of the candidates on the short list were on their way - which MSNBC then reported.

"The fact that it was reported in real time was very embarrassing," said a senior MSNBC official. "We were told, 'No, it's not Sarah Palin and you don't know who it is.' "

Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams, the past and present anchors of "NBC Nightly News," have told friends and colleagues that they are finding it tougher and tougher to defend the cable arm of the news division, even while they anchored daytime hours of convention coverage on MSNBC and contributed commentary each evening.

Mr. Williams did not respond to a request for comment and Mr. Brokaw declined to comment. At a panel discussion in Denver, Mr. Brokaw acknowledged that Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews had "gone too far" at times, but emphasized they were "not the only voices" on MSNBC, according to The Washington Post.

Al Hunt, the executive Washington bureau chief of Bloomberg News, said that the entire news division was being singled out by Republicans because of the work of partisans like Mr. Olbermann. "To go and tar the whole news network and Brokaw and Mitchell is grossly unfair," he said, referring to the NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell.

Some tensions have spilled out on-screen. On the first night in Denver, as the fellow MSNBC host Joe Scarborough talked about the resurgence of the McCain campaign, Mr. Olbermann dismissed it by saying: "Jesus, Joe, why don't you get a shovel?"

The following night, Mr. Olbermann and his co-anchor for convention coverage, Mr. Matthews, had their own squabble after Mr. Olbermann observed that Mr. Matthews had talked too long.

Some staff members said the tension led to the network's decision to keep Mr. Olbermann in New York for the Republican convention, after he ran the desk in Denver during the Democratic convention. MSNBC said that he stayed in New York to anchor coverage of Hurricane Gustav. But some workers say there were other reasons - namely, that Mr. Olbermann was concerned about his safety in St. Paul, given the loud crowds at MSNBC's set in Denver.

NBC Universal executives are also known to be concerned about the perception that MSNBC's partisan tilt in prime time is bleeding into the rest of the programming day. On a recent Friday afternoon, a graphic labeled "Breaking News" asked: "How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?" Mr. Griffin called the graphic "an embarrassment."

According to three staff members, Jeff Zucker, chief executive of NBC Universal, and Steve Capus, president of NBC News, considered flying to the Republican convention in Minnesota last week to address the lingering tensions.

Up to now, the company's public support for MSNBC's strategy has been enthusiastic. At an anniversary party for Mr. Olbermann in April, Mr. Zucker called "Countdown" "one of the signature brands of the entire company."

Just last year, Mr. Olbermann signed a four-year, $4-million-a-year contract with MSNBC. NBC is close to supplementing that contract with Mr. Olbermann, extending his deal through 2013 - and ensuring that he will be on MSNBC through the next election.

What the hell dude!

[danoyse]

MSNBC needs a major overhaul, and I don't see Olberman adding anything useful to their election coverage. My politics lean to the left, but I can't stand listening to him.

Think they can risk either of them going after Palin again? It only opens up the opportunity to play that sympathy card they played last week. Now it's out of the picture.

[hippie_hunter]

On one hand I applaud this move on account that Olbermann and Matthews should not be anchors. Anchors should be more talented in keeping their bias within, something that Olbermann utterly failed at. While getting rid of them from the anchor seats, I'm glad that they still get to keep their shows we need shows like Countdown with Keith Olbermann to counter shows like the O'Reilly Factor.

On the other hand I do admit that I'm a little upset. More people complain about Fox News being incredibly biased for the GOP, yet they do nothing but when people complain about MSNBC being incredibly biased for the Democrats, they buckle under pressure.

[jaguarr]

If this means more balanced coverage then I have no problem with this. I miss the days of real journalism where actual journalists stuck to the actual facts rather than having a bunch of talking head op-ed columnists on the air pushing their agendas. Olbermann, while I agree with much of what he has to say, is a primary offender of that basic rule of journalism from the MSNBC side. Now let's see Fox follow suit (yeah, right).

jag

[danoyse]

Sad, isn't it? If anything, this is going to energize Fox into giving a big I-told-you-so over their coverage over the Palin stuff last week. :whatever:

[The Senator]

I am upset that Matthews has been removed from covering the election. He has actually shown himself as a capable "anchor," even if he often provides his own commentary. Keith Olbermann, on the other hand, is a pompous ass who deserves to be kicked off of MSNBC altogether. Same thing with Rachel Maddow.

I hope this means David Gregory, Chuck Todd and Tom Brokaw will take over the election coverage. All three men have proven themselves as capable, unbiased contributors on MSNBC (even though you can sometimes tell that Todd has a bias, he rarely shows it).

[jaguarr]

Sad, isn't it? If anything, this is going to energize Fox into giving a big I-told-you-so over their coverage over the Palin stuff last week. :whatever:

After watching Fox News' coverage of this election, I half wonder if they should be legally forced to change their name to Fox Commentary.

jag

[SentinelMind]

A good move on their part, leave the coverage to professionals and keep them as side commentators. the way Matthews was screaming after Obama's convention speech was ridiculous.

[SuperT]

Fox News should just be canceled altogether.

[Knives]

So now I fully expect Fox to do the same thing right? Of course not. This is ridiculous.

[hippie_hunter]

I am upset that Matthews has been removed from covering the election. He has actually shown himself as a capable "anchor," even if he often provides his own commentary. Keith Olbermann, on the other hand, is a pompous ass who deserves to be kicked off of MSNBC altogether. Same thing with Rachel Maddow.
Why should Olbermann be kicked off MSNBC? The guys a liberal Bill O'Reilly and his pompous ass counterpart has his own show.

[danoyse]

I remember a Jon Stewart joke a few years back when they showed coverage of a truck chase that consumed all of the news networks for an afternoon. He said "The Fox News Channel had a different take on events," and showed Bill Clinton super-imposed over the driver.

Logically thinking, this keeps Olberman from shooting his mouth off and giving an even better opportunity for the Republicans to blame them for everything again.

[The Senator]

Why should Olbermann be kicked off MSNBC? The guys a liberal Bill O'Reilly and his pompous ass counterpart has his own show.

I cannot stand Keith Olbermann, because he has the audacity to call himself a "reporter" when he is actually a pundit. If he could acknowledge the fact that he is a pundit, or a personality, I would have no problem with MSNBC continuing his show. However, his pomposity has been taken up to the same level of Bill O'Reilly, and I am personally against blurring the line, distinctly, between journalism and 'infotainment.'

[jaguarr]

A good move on their part, leave the coverage to professionals and keep them as side commentators. the way Matthews was screaming after Obama's convention speech was ridiculous.

If Fox did that, they'd have an empty studio. :hehe:

jag

[hippie_hunter]

I cannot stand Keith Olbermann, because he has the audacity to call himself a "reporter" when he is actually a pundit.
And Bill O'Reilly calls himself an independent.

If he could acknowledge the fact that he is a pundit, or a personality, I would have no problem with MSNBC continuing his show. However, his pomposity has been taken up to the same level of Bill O'Reilly, and I am personally against blurring the line, distinctly, between journalism and 'infotainment.'
My attitude towards MSNBC is the same as Fox News, if you don't like it, just ignore it. MSNBC can do whatever the hell it wants, it's their damn studio. I just simply won't care.

[StorminNorman]

And Bill O'Reilly calls himself an independent.

O'Reilly IS an independent though. I am not going to try to defend his argument styles or whatever, but to imply he is not independent would be wrong. Is he Conservative? Of course - he proudly wears that badge every time he talks about "culture wars", but he is certainly not an Elephant. He has been a vocal critic of the President's handling of Iraq pre-surge, he has criticized the administration on Afghanistan, Immigration, Energy, etc.

Does he bash liberal balls more than conservatives? Of course, but Party has nothing to do with it.

[StorminNorman]

So now I fully expect Fox to do the same thing right? Of course not. This is ridiculous.

Since you can't compare Brit Hulme, a respected and very good newsperson, to Olberman - I don't see how Fox COULD do the same thing.

Fox's election staff isn't made up of obvious commentators.

[R0rschach]

Oh MSNBC why do you hurt them so, haven't you figured out that mosly the left watches your programming. You were once the Wolf to their Fox, and now you betray them. Ohh well geuss it's true after all, liberals have no backbone. :hehe:

[Marx]

If this means more balanced coverage then I have no problem with this. I miss the days of real journalism where actual journalists stuck to the actual facts rather than having a bunch of talking head op-ed columnists on the air pushing their agendas. Olbermann, while I agree with much of what he has to say, is a primary offender of that basic rule of journalism from the MSNBC side. Now let's see Fox follow suit (yeah, right).

jag

Yeah...I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

[SuBe]

This is the best news I've heard all year. Thank god!

[fifthfiend]

Although MSNBC nearly doubled its total audience compared with the 2004 conventions

Once again the conservative ownership which controls our media act to stamp out liberal programming, despite the demonstrated popularity of such programming. No shock at all.

O'Reilly IS an independent though. I am not going to try to defend his argument styles or whatever, but to imply he is not independent would be wrong. Is he Conservative? Of course - he proudly wears that badge every time he talks about "culture wars", but he is certainly not an Elephant. He has been a vocal critic of the President's handling of Iraq pre-surge, he has criticized the administration on Afghanistan, Immigration, Energy, etc.

Does he bash liberal balls more than conservatives? Of course, but Party has nothing to do with it.

You're right, O'Reilly is clearly this half of the hair you just split, as opposed to that other half of the aforementioned hair, which has been split, by yourself.

EDIT: That's what I call vocal criticism! (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/17/bush-propagandize/)

[BlackLantern]

Olbermann is a liberal bully and Matthews is just a mouthpiece

[Addendum]

I never bothered to watch either convention, and MSNBC can put whomever they want to cover debates and have whomever to analyze them.

I'll just grab the CliffsNotes version off the web

[BlackLantern]

Once again the conservative ownership which controls our media act to stamp out liberal programming, despite the demonstrated popularity of such programming. No shock at all.

MSNBC has been coming in dead last for some time now....they even dragged Donahue out of retirement to try and grab viewers....considering that 80 - 90 percent of the media is liberal it makes a conservative viewpoint stick out that much more....IMO

[lazur]

After watching Fox News' coverage of this election, I half wonder if they should be legally forced to change their name to Fox Commentary.

jag

Really? Who on Fox are you referring to? Oh, that's right, the commentators...

[jaguarr]

Really? Who on Fox are you referring to? Oh, that's right, the commentators...

Of which there are so many that I honestly can't tell who's supposed to be a journalist and who's supposed to be a "commentator".

jag

[Superman]

What the hell dude!Oh man, I've got a cold, I don't feel like reading all of that. Just tell me, Is Countdown and Hardball still on the air? If so fine. I don't care if they do the other stuff.:csad:

[Addendum]

They're still on the air

[gap5ewl]

Oh man, I've got a cold, I don't feel like reading all of that. Just tell me, Is Countdown and Hardball still on the air? If so fine. I don't care if they do the other stuff.:csad:

Yes it's just they won't be the main reporters for the election anymore just commentators. I'm guessing fixed news isn't gonna follow suit either...

[Superman]

Yes it's just they won't be the main reporters for the election anymore just commentators. I'm guessing fixed news isn't gonna follow suit either...
Thank you.

That's good, and you're right about Fox.

[lazur]

Of which there are so many that I honestly can't tell who's supposed to be a journalist and who's supposed to be a "commentator".

jag

Hmm, it works the same way on every other news station as well...

[jaguarr]

Hmm, it works the same way on every other news station as well...

Ummm, no. Just as an example, when I watch NBC with Brian Williams, I know he's a journalist, not a commentator.

jag

[lazur]

Ummm, no. Just as an example, when I watch NBC with Brian Williams, I know he's a journalist, not a commentator.

jag

When I watch Fox with Brit Hume, I know he's a journalist - not a commentator.

[SuBe]

When I watch Fox with Brit Hume, I know he's a journalist - not a commentator.
Or Shepard Smith, or Bret Bayer (sp?) or Chris Wallace.

[BlackLantern]

I like Sheppard Smith.....

[Kurosawa]

Once again, the myth of the liberal media is exposed. Some of the people IN the media are liberal to be certain, but the companies themselves are far from liberal.

Of course FOX would never make a move like this, but they belong to the GOP heart and soul anyway.

Crap like this is a part of why the Democrats lose elections-that and the fact that they play way too soft.

[BlackLantern]

Once again, the myth of the liberal media is exposed. Some of the people IN the media are liberal to be certain, but the companies themselves are far from liberal.

Of course FOX would never make a move like this, but they belong to the GOP heart and soul anyway.

Crap like this is a part of why the Democrats lose elections-that and the fact that they play way too soft.

I was under the impression the voters decided that.....

[JackMercy]

I once saw Shepherd "my name relates to my work environment" Smith end an interview with someone -- an interview entirely unrelated to religion, by the way -- by dropping, "Do you believe in the almighty?"

The respondent, and myself, sat there stunned.

He asked it again.

...and from that day forward, I knew Fox News was...not my thing, to put it politely. These days, I often wonder if that's a question on their job applications...

On the other end, I echo someone else's sentiments here, I can't stand Olberman or Matthews most of the time, either... And I could never take seriously someone who has a last name where their first name should be (I'm looking at you, "Anderson Cooper.").

American cable news has disintegrated into "a smattering of news and add your own editorial."

[BlackLantern]

but Anderson Copper is so dreamy....

[Kurosawa]

I was under the impression the voters decided that.....

And the voters decide that way when the Republicans slam them and the Democrats don't respond.

Taking my personal political positions out of it, and simply looking at the Democratic Party as an institution whose job it is to win elections, to be honest, they're not very good, especially in Presidential elections. Losing in 2000 was inexcusable and nominating a sure loser like Kerry in 04 was even worse.

I can give them much more of a pass for their struggles this year, because even though Obama should be way ahead of McCain, this is still a pretty racist country and although I feel he's sold out a lot of his moderate principles, McCain still gets a lot of peoples respect.

[BlackLantern]

And the voters decide that way when the Republicans slam them and the Democrats don't respond.

Taking my personal political positions out of it, and simply looking at the Democratic Party as an institution whose job it is to win elections, to be honest, they're not very good, especially in Presidential elections. Losing in 2000 was inexcusable and nominating a sure loser like Kerry in 04 was even worse.

I can give them much more of a pass for their struggles this year, because even though Obama should be way ahead of McCain, this is still a pretty racist country and although I feel he's sold out a lot of his moderate principles, McCain still gets a lot of peoples respect.

I can agree with that....I think this country might be more ignorant than racist....

[chaseter]

Olberman and Matthews deserve to be on Fox for their blatant biases.

[DACrowe]

It needed to be done and I agree with the decision. You simply do not put commentators/editorialists in the anchor seats on election nights. You need a firm balanced journalist and not the liberal Bill O'Reilly. Matthews is a little better, but he obviously leans to the left.

I like the show Hardball and think it is probably the best commentator show on TV right now (which isn't saying much as they are all ultimately at most mediocre) and think that and Countdown should stay. As for complaining that Countdown is in primetime, well Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity need to take a long hard look in the mirror if that was the case.

This was a good decision. Albeit I would have waited another week to announce it, as the debates aren't for two more weeks. By announcing it this week, it makes them look weak and gives fuel to the Fox News propaganda machine that the media is liberally smearing Palin. The fact is the only smearing are angry Republicans whose talking points are recited and memorized along with biased unfounded blogger rumors by Fox News while it would seem the "high road" approach Obama is taking may be backfiring.

But that is another discussion.

In short: Good decision, bad timing.

[DACrowe]

When I watch Fox with Brit Hume, I know he's a journalist - not a commentator.

Ah, because when he covers the Democratic Primaries and says "We now know Obama won Indiana. Yippey skippey" with an incredibly bored face, he is not showing any bias? :rolleyes:

Brian Williams >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Brit Hume.

[SuBe]

Ah, because when he covers the Democratic Primaries and says "We now know Obama won Indiana. Yippey skippey" with an incredibly bored face, he is not showing any bias? :rolleyes:

Brian Williams >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Brit Hume.
That's not a bored face, that's his normal face.

[bunk]

Matthews and Olbermann were only even covering it because that's the span of time they normally occupy. Long hours on the air coupled with the loss of their "own time" to say what they want will lead to that type of crap on the air. They were fine during the debates earlier on, it's obvious they just tried to do too much.

[Venom'sDad]

:eek: Good Riddance :):cool::up:

[Ocramed]

Fox News should just be canceled altogether.

Thank you for being a supporter of the First Amendment. :whatever:

[ManofmyWord]

Hey guys, if anyone caught Keith tonight he Ripped The Republicians on the 9/11 Tribute. Then he called out McCain on hiding the secret of catching Bin Laden, calling him a traitor and helping Bin Laden stay free. He was close to tears with anger. I know Olberman is biased, but he was brutally honest tonight and I thought it was worth posting. Anyone got the video yet?

[luke1234]

thats crazy i need to see a video

[gap5ewl]

Hey guys, if anyone caught Keith tonight he Ripped The Republicians on the 9/11 Tribute. Then he called out McCain on hiding the secret of catching Bin Laden, calling him a traitor and helping Bin Laden stay free. He was close to tears with anger. I know Olberman is biased, but he was brutally honest tonight and I thought it was worth posting. Anyone got the video yet?

Yeah I watched. He is biased but he did a great job pointed out McCain and the GOP are just using 9/11 and Bin Laden for the election (again). The best part though was earlier on when he showed Fred Thompson mocking the media for being cynical towards Palin because she doesn't do morning talk show interviews and hasnt been on time magazine and then they flash the cover of time magazine this week. :woot:

[ManofmyWord]

Here it is.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I2Rzt_WzrPQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I2Rzt_WzrPQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Motown Marvel]

:wow:

[Addendum]

And I thought his special comment at ground zero in 2006 was harsh.

This one was brutal.

[Superman]

I'm glad someone is out there saying this. It needs to be said.

The GOP has used 9/11 to scare up votes so much that it's disgusting. Like Obama said...

"Enough is enough!"

[Shifty]

Well said. 9/11™

[Marx]

Here it is.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I2Rzt_WzrPQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I2Rzt_WzrPQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

:wow:

Holy crap! I'm speechless...

[Addendum]

I just wonder who was the "genius" that had the bright idea that showing actual footage of the twin towers on fire and collapsing would be a great idea ton include in a tribute video.

I've seen several tribute videos for actors, musicians, public icons, politicians, and others. None of them show pictures or footage of their deaths, even the ones that may have such footage or photos.

[Yerzrinot]

Olbermann hit the nail on the head.

[DACrowe]

I agree with the first 2/3 wholeheartedly. His attack on 9/11 "TM" and the manipulation and fear smear of the right was viscously refreshing to hear. Political opportunism and nothing more.

The last third...yes and no. I agree with the end point that McCain (or rather Republicans) aren't fighting terrorists but using them to win elections. But he took the "if you knew where Osama was" thing too far and I already see the right's backlash to that comment. "How could he know where he is? It's just politicing!"

Which is exactly the point Olberman was trying to make but got side-tracked. It is just politics and to use such comments to scare up votes is insulting and disgraceful. He brought it home in his last sentences though. But the first 4 minutes and last minute is golden and on the nail. He just got lost on a detour somewhere in there.

[comicgirl]

Olbermann hit the nail on the head.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26645619/

[comicgirl]

I'm glad someone is out there saying this. It needs to be said.

The GOP has used 9/11 to scare up votes so much that it's disgusting. Like Obama said...

"Enough is enough!"Can I get an amen!!!!! Olbermann is the man.

[kainedamo]

I remember what Olbermann said the night that 'tribute' video was shown and my thoughts were much the same as his.

I made this video about it. I've recieved a bunch of nice personal messages about the vid.

ugYbgrE9LsY

[lazur]

I'm not really sure which one I'm more concerned about: That republicans seem to talk about 9/11 all the time, or that democrats seem to avoid talking about it at all, as if it never happened...

[hippie_hunter]

Here it is.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I2Rzt_WzrPQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I2Rzt_WzrPQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


And that's why he was kicked off his anchoring position :o

[Gilpesh]

democrats seem to avoid talking about it at all, as if it never happened...

Just stop trying to get people flaming you. :whatever:

[kainedamo]

I'm not really sure which one I'm more concerned about: That republicans seem to talk about 9/11 all the time, or that democrats seem to avoid talking about it at all, as if it never happened...

You're a troll.

[SuperFerret]

I'm not really sure which one I'm more concerned about: That republicans seem to talk about 9/11 all the time, or that democrats seem to avoid talking about it at all, as if it never happened...

Not talking about it at all is actually the best and most respectable way to go about it. Obviously, today is an exception, but BOTH parties have over-politicized the events of 9-11-01, and it's a shame. To truly respect the memory of the deceased, the events should never be mentioned in the political realm.

[DACrowe]

There is a difference of not talking about it and not talking about it at a "celebratory" convention party as means of political gain. That is slimy opportunism that the Repubs love using.

[kane9321]

olberman is the man..period. Love him to death

[kane9321]

I'm not really sure which one I'm more concerned about: That republicans seem to talk about 9/11 all the time, or that democrats seem to avoid talking about it at all, as if it never happened...

internet troll:cmad:

[Darthphere]

I'm not really sure which one I'm more concerned about: That republicans seem to talk about 9/11 all the time, or that democrats seem to avoid talking about it at all, as if it never happened...

Do you really need to be constantly reminded that 9/11 happened and how terrible it was? I can honestly say, a day does not go by that I don't remember something about that day.

[Gilpesh]

Do you really need to be constantly reminded that 9/11 happened and how terrible it was? I can honestly say, a day does not go by that I don't remember something about that day.

And doesn't help when the people reminding you of it... always seem to have an election nearby or a bill to pass or a war to start...

[Matt]

You're a troll.

internet troll:cmad:

Don't call Lazur a troll when he's not trolling. He's entitled to his opinion as much as you are.

[Darthphere]

What if Lazur was literally, a troll?

[Matt]

I remember what Olbermann said the night that 'tribute' video was shown and my thoughts were much the same as his.

I made this video about it. I've recieved a bunch of nice personal messages about the vid.

ugYbgrE9LsY

Couldn't one argue that you're exploiting the exploitation of a tragedy for political gain?

[Darthphere]

You could, I could also call you a douchebag, does it mean I should?

[kainedamo]

Don't call Lazur a troll when he's not trolling. He's entitled to his opinion as much as you are.

His behavior is trollish. He's said on multiple occasions that democrats want to forget 9/11 and just sort of leaves that opinion hanging out there with no further explanation. I've asked him about it and he just sort of disappears and comes back later saying something else completely ridiculous.

[kainedamo]

Couldn't one argue that you're exploiting the exploitation of a tragedy for political gain?

No. I'm exploiting a propeganda video for what it is.

[Matt]

His behavior is trollish. He's said on multiple occasions that democrats want to forget 9/11 and just sort of leaves that opinion hanging out there with no further explanation. I've asked him about it and he just sort of disappears and comes back later saying something else completely ridiculous.

And your video makes the broad generalization that Republicans are evil and exploiting tragedy.

Furthermore, he owes you no explanation.

[moraldeficiency]

eh, it's kinda pointless. Preaching to the choir, doesn't do much. Personally I think that people that weren't there should shut the **** up about 9/11, and I'd be cool if all pundits would maybe plug their cake holes for the day and instead of making this political just respect that good people died this day. I don't mind this as a top to discuss at all, but not today, today isn't the time to one up people, or hit talking points or cast blame. Today's about the people that died and the families that were shattered and anyone on any side of the isle that uses this day to make political points is an *******. You can say the same thing tomorrow or any other day.

[ShadowBoxing]

Here it is.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I2Rzt_WzrPQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I2Rzt_WzrPQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Please, guys, host videos properly.

Like so

I2Rzt_WzrPQ&hl [ /yt]

[yt]I2Rzt_WzrPQ&hl

[StrainedEyes]

eh, it's kinda pointless. Preaching to the choir, doesn't do much. Personally I think that people that weren't there should shut the **** up about 9/11, and I'd be cool if all pundits would maybe plug their cake holes for the day and instead of making this political just respect that good people died this day. I don't mind this as a top to discuss at all, but not today, today isn't the time to one up people, or hit talking points or cast blame. Today's about the people that died and the families that were shattered and anyone on any side of the isle that uses this day to make political points is an *******. You can say the same thing tomorrow or any other day.

He said this yesterday, I hardly see how that warrants an argument to shut up today.

[StrainedEyes]

Please, guys, host videos properly.

Like so

I2Rzt_WzrPQ&hl [ /yt]

[yt]I2Rzt_WzrPQ&hl

His video works perfectly fine. :huh:

[ShadowBoxing]

Not for me...he had the whole link in [yt] "quotes" when I quoted him. Your only supposed to quote the last part of the link.

[ManofmyWord]

Sorry.

[moraldeficiency]

He said this yesterday, I hardly see how that warrants an argument to shut up today.

No, you probably wouldn't. Today's a time to slam politics and make political points not doing anything as useless as honoring the dead. You'd probably feel a bit differently if you knew someone that died today, but luckily most of you don't.

It's cool, I probably overreacted (personal issues with this day) I just get sick of people using everything for political gain or to slam someone else. I don't mind it, just today maybe we could do something but make a few political points to people that basically agree with us anyway. Maybe today we could make it about the victims and not our anger or indignation, you know be better than those asshats. Unfortunately I know we aren't.

[kane9321]

What if Lazur was literally, a troll?

lol oh god I just spat up my oj on my comp..thanks darth

[RAMORE]

Daaaayyyyyuuummmmm! Well you guys are right he is most definately biased. I agree with a great many things in this video. I hate when either party tries to parlay this into votes. I can't agree with them blaming the bush administration when bin laden had been captured a few years earlier and clinton didn't want him. I do blame Giulanni for how bad the event was because he had that city so ill prepared, he did do a decent job after the attack though in his defense. He went a bit far with the your aiding bin laden thing. I don't agree with not showing the images of 9/11. They shouldn't be shown to young children and we don't need to see the jumpers but the attack and the fall and the aftermath need to be remembered we all promised to never forget....sadly some have.

[SuperFerret]

What if Lazur was literally, a troll?

Then it'd be racial profiling.

[Darthphere]

Then it'd be racial profiling.

Troll is a race?

[RAMORE]

I'm not really sure which one I'm more concerned about: That republicans seem to talk about 9/11 all the time, or that democrats seem to avoid talking about it at all, as if it never happened...

I think this is a fair statement both parties mishandle it all together.

[RAMORE]

If trolls were real they would be. Darth if you ask a stupid question you'll get a stupid answer;)

[Gilpesh]

but the attack and the fall and the aftermath need to be remembered we all promised to never forget....sadly some have.

Come off your naive high horse.

Cause when does not bringing something up, mean you've forgotten it?

Oh wait... it doesn't.

[Darthphere]

If trolls were real they would be. Darth if you ask a stupid question you'll get a stupid answer;)

I would assume troll would be a species though, are you saying tiger is a race?:huh:

[StrainedEyes]

No, you probably wouldn't. Today's a time to slam politics and make political points not doing anything as useless as honoring the dead. You'd probably feel a bit differently if you knew someone that died today, but luckily most of you don't.

It's cool, I probably overreacted (personal issues with this day) I just get sick of people using everything for political gain or to slam someone else. I don't mind it, just today maybe we could do something but make a few political points to people that basically agree with us anyway. Maybe today we could make it about the victims and not our anger or indignation, you know be better than those asshats. Unfortunately I know we aren't.

He lost friends that day. He made the statement yesterday because he was directly effected by 9/11 and the video tribute during the RNC. He was obviously holding back tears when he made a statement right after the tribute first aired to apologize to anyone offended by it.

No one is arguing that today shouldn't be about the victims.

[kainedamo]

And your video makes the broad generalization that Republicans are evil and exploiting tragedy.

Furthermore, he owes you no explanation.

Why do you make these illogical statements with no objectivity?

My video points out that the republican party using that 9/11 'tribute' was akin to propeganda of the wost kind, exploiting a tragedy. Nothing more and nothing less. If you want to take away the message "republicans are evil" that is up to you.

And this is the politics thread, where we debate. If lazur wishes to repeat ridiculous statements like "democrats want to forget all about 9/11" then he better explain it. If not, I consider that trolling.

[Matt]

Why do you make these illogical statements with no objectivity?

My video points out that the republican party using that 9/11 'tribute' was akin to propeganda of the wost kind, exploiting a tragedy. Nothing more and nothing less. If you want to take away the message "republicans are evil" that is up to you.

So you're exploiting the exploitation of tragedy for political gain?


And this is the politics thread, where we debate. If lazur wishes to repeat ridiculous statements like "democrats want to forget all about 9/11" then he better explain it. If not, I consider that trolling.

Luckily, what you consider trolling does not matter. Lazur has not said anything in an inflammatory manner, nor has he violated his TOS.

[moraldeficiency]

He lost friends that day. He made the statement yesterday because he was directly effected by 9/11 and the video tribute during the RNC. He was obviously holding back tears when he made a statement right after the tribute first aired to apologize to anyone offended by it.

No one is arguing that today shouldn't be about the victims.

It seemed very staged and politically motivated to me personally. It seemed like an attack, not an unjust one, but inappropriate for the day. If he had problems with the RNC tribute he's waited till a very emotionally and politically charged time to fire this out. It seemed crappy to me, that's all I'm saying.

And everyone talking politics over the victims is doing exactly that today. I'm not saying I'm better, I'm saying we're all pretty awful people. This has turned into more a day to "score points" than a day to pay tribute.

[ShadowBoxing]

Perhaps, if they wish to be more accurate, rather than showing the Iranian Hostage Crisis (which has no known connection), they should show Reagan and Bush41 training and arming Osama Bin Laden in the 1980s to equip him to fight communism.

[Superman4ever]

Here it is.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I2Rzt_WzrPQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I2Rzt_WzrPQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Lord was this needed! The "tribute" video enraged me to no end.

[kainedamo]

So you're exploiting the exploitation of tragedy for political gain?

I'm not running a campaign for Presidency, Matt.

[Matt]

So that means you have no political agenda?

[Marx]

And your video makes the broad generalization that Republicans are evil and exploiting tragedy.

Furthermore, he owes you no explanation.

I would hope that you're not suggesting otherwise Matt. If you are, I think we need to have a little talk.

Daaaayyyyyuuummmmm! Well you guys are right he is most definately biased. I agree with a great many things in this video. I hate when either party tries to parlay this into votes. I can't agree with them blaming the bush administration when bin laden had been captured a few years earlier and clinton didn't want him. I do blame Giulanni for how bad the event was because he had that city so ill prepared, he did do a decent job after the attack though in his defense. He went a bit far with the your aiding bin laden thing. I don't agree with not showing the images of 9/11. They shouldn't be shown to young children and we don't need to see the jumpers but the attack and the fall and the aftermath need to be remembered we all promised to never forget....sadly some have.

No one has forgotten that day. No one will ever forget that day. To suggest that people have is incredibly naive. Just because people don't discuss the tragedy on a day to day basis, or have it plastered all over the news everyday, or take a brief moment to pause everyday doesn't mean that they do not remember or do not care. Think RAMORE, take off the partisan blinders.

[Superman]

And that's why he was kicked off his anchoring position :oSo? Does that change anything he said? No, So why bring it up?










It's just my two cents but I don't think lazur was trolling with his post. I may not like the guy but I saw nothing wrong with the post in question.

That's just my opinion.:yay:

[RAMORE]

Come off your naive high horse.

Cause when does not bringing something up, mean you've forgotten it?

Oh wait... it doesn't.

I'm not on my high horse? People literally act like it never happened. I went on vaction to New York went to ground zero and visited the museum there and cried for about an hour remembering and then felt sick that I had really almost forgot how awful it was and i'm sure i'm not the only one.

Then on the ferry to the statue of Liberty some dumb girl was yelling at her parents for making her go to ground zero to see some dumb hole having to do with people "she didn't know or care about" died, when all she wanted to do was go shopping!:wow: My wife and I were thinking we must all be tourist a new yorker probably would have punched her in the mouth.

[RAMORE]

I would assume troll would be a species though, are you saying tiger is a race?:huh:

...your right I hadn't thought of that:up:

[Gilpesh]

I'm not on my high horse? People literally act like it never happened. I went on vaction to New York went to ground zero and visited the museum there and cried for about an hour remembering and then felt sick that I had really almost forgot how awful it was and i'm sure i'm not the only one.

What? Do you really feel like it is necessary to talk about it every day to show people that we remember?

And really Ramore, you want everyone to completely CHANGE THEIR LIFE because of 9-11? Just to show everyone that they remember the attack that happened?

Then on the ferry to the statue of Liberty some dumb girl was yelling at her parents for making her go to ground zero to see some dumb hole having to do with people "she didn't know or care about" died, when all she wanted to do was go shopping!:wow: My wife and I were thinking we must all be tourist a new yorker probably would have punched her in the mouth.

Wow... kids are stupid and only care about themselves? And you're going to use that as an example of the general population?

[kainedamo]

So that means you have no political agenda?

What does that even mean?

I guess documentary makers the world over are selfish bastards with an agenda? What the hell are you talking about?

[RAMORE]

I would hope that you're not suggesting otherwise Matt. If you are, I think we need to have a little talk.



No one has forgotten that day. No one will ever forget that day. To suggest that people have is incredibly naive. Just because people don't discuss the tragedy on a day to day basis, or have it plastered all over the news everyday, or take a brief moment to pause everyday doesn't mean that they do not remember or do not care. Think RAMORE, take off the partisan blinders.

No partisan blinders read my other post.

[Gilpesh]

I guess documentary makers the world over are selfish bastards with an agenda?

Kaine... with Michael Moore breathing... you should never ask that. :hehe:

[ManofmyWord]

It affected us all in different ways. Some are reminded of it in more ways than others. I was only in 7th grade when it happened. Most of my adult years have somehow been affected by it. By no means have any of us forgotten it, but we shouldn't dwell on it and not move forward. People don't pause and reflect on Pearl Harbor everyday but it is still remembered. But this day should be about the victims, not politics. The Republicans could have shown a much, much better “Tribute”.

[kainedamo]

I just don't really get Matt's point. It's crazy mad logic gone bananas. Maybe we should just not let any commentators, whether they be in the media or just people at home, comment on the issues that concern them. If Matt is comparing my video to a presidential campaign running a propeganda film about 9/11 on their biggest convention night when my video is a critique of it, he is comparing apples and oranges. Mad in the head!! Insane in the membrane :(

[Marx]

No partisan blinders read my other post.

Fair enough. My apologies for the 'partisan blinders' comment. That said, I don't think it is right, fair, or accurate in the least to use some young teenager as a gauge for the overall population's feeling about 9/11. You and I both know that kids that young have no appreciation for anything beyond themselves.

[Addendum]

I don't agree with not showing the images of 9/11. They shouldn't be shown to young children and we don't need to see the jumpers but the attack and the fall and the aftermath need to be remembered we all promised to never forget....sadly some have.
One doesn't have to see video of the Twin Towers on fire and collapsing to remember that it happened.

[RAMORE]

Fair enough. My apologies for the 'partisan blinders' comment. That said, I don't think it is right, fair, or accurate in the least to use some young teenager as a gauge for the overall population's feeling about 9/11. You and I both know that kids that young have no appreciation for anything beyond themselves.

True but I still want to beat that kid:cmad: And are honestly saying that we all remember and honor without agenda like we should? Hearing some of yall's stories makes me realize i'm alot older (not so many years but there is a huge difference between 7th grader and college student) so it affected me differently.

[RAMORE]

One doesn't have to see video of the Twin Towers on fire and collapsing to remember that it happened.

What's the harm in it though?

[Gilpesh]

What's the harm in it though?

Hearing some of yall's stories makes me realize you weren't in New York to see it so it affected you differently than someone who was there.



Just like age affects me? :whatever:


(note: not saying I was there... I just realize someone seeing it happen is different than me who saw it on TV)

[danoyse]

Daaaayyyyyuuummmmm! Well you guys are right he is most definately biased. I agree with a great many things in this video. I hate when either party tries to parlay this into votes. I can't agree with them blaming the bush administration when bin laden had been captured a few years earlier and clinton didn't want him. I do blame Giulanni for how bad the event was because he had that city so ill prepared, he did do a decent job after the attack though in his defense. He went a bit far with the your aiding bin laden thing. I don't agree with not showing the images of 9/11. They shouldn't be shown to young children and we don't need to see the jumpers but the attack and the fall and the aftermath need to be remembered we all promised to never forget....sadly some have.

Ramore, I was in NYC on 9/11. As much as I despise Guiliani and his policies, NYC as a whole did an amazing job on 9/11. I was in midtown Manhattan (near the Empire State Building), and this city could have turned into utter chaos with everything going on downtown...and we did fine. No rioting, no looting, none of the things you associate with a disaster. NY'ers were helping other NY'ers. My dad and I even went for pizza that afternoon.

I don't think I'd ever been prouder of my city as I was that day. Were we prepared? Hell no. But we did the best we could.

[Addendum]

Ask people that have lost loved ones and friends in 9-11. They don't want to see what killed them.

When Princess Diana's sons had a concert to honor her on her birthday last year, they didn't show footage of her death. And yet, everyone there were still able to remember her.

Basically, it's having something called "good taste" and "decency"

[SuperFerret]

I'm not on my high horse? People literally act like it never happened. I went on vaction to New York went to ground zero and visited the museum there and cried for about an hour remembering and then felt sick that I had really almost forgot how awful it was and i'm sure i'm not the only one.

Then on the ferry to the statue of Liberty some dumb girl was yelling at her parents for making her go to ground zero to see some dumb hole having to do with people "she didn't know or care about" died, when all she wanted to do was go shopping!:wow: My wife and I were thinking we must all be tourist a new yorker probably would have punched her in the mouth.

Dude, just chill, as was said before, kids are selfish, and I'll amend that, people are selfish. I've lived in New York my entire life and I wouldn't punch her (and I probably would've stopped anyone who did).

I did not lose anyone that day, nor do I know anyone close to me who did. I'm fortunate in that way, and for the most part, yes, I do act like it never happened, as my life isn't much different as it would be had it not happened. Doesn't mean I forgot, or don't care, it's just not weighing on my mind every hour of every day.

(And honestly, I agree with the girl. Her parents are wrong to force her along to go gawking at a big hole, it's a place of tragedy, not a tourist attraction. It's bad enough they called it "The Pit" for so damn long.)

[Marx]

True but I still want to beat that kid:cmad: And are honestly saying that we all remember and honor without agenda like we should? Hearing some of yall's stories makes me realize i'm alot older (not so many years but there is a huge difference between 7th grader and college student) so it affected me differently.

As I said, children and young teenagers don't necessarily have the apprecation that others do. That said, you cannot gauge the rest of the population on the reactions of those I just mentioned.

I was a sophomore in college when the attack happened. I was still asleep when the first plane hit, but was watching as the second plane hit. I remember the terror I felt, just watching it. Then there were reports of smoke at the Pentagon, and then in Pennsylvania...and then the Towers collapsed. I don't need to see it on tv, or hear about it every day to remember that day in detail. I also live near an air force base, and watched the f-16s scatter overhead to patrol the skies. Anyone who saw the events of that day take place will forever have it burned in their memory.

[danoyse]

What's the harm in it though?

I see it everyday, Ramore. Everyday I go to work and see a gaping hole in the skyline. My life and the lives of everyone I know has been irreparably changed by this.

I don't think it should be shown every day because a dumb teenager griped about having to go to the site. Kids are stupid.

What I want to see most of all is how we've moved forward since then. I want to see an anniversary remembered at a proper memorial, not around a gaping construction site. I want to see who we've made the world a better place since then.

Think about it...do you want to see one of the worst days of your life repeated over and over?

[JLBats]

I just don't really get Matt's point. It's crazy mad logic gone bananas. Maybe we should just not let any commentators, whether they be in the media or just people at home, comment on the issues that concern them. If Matt is comparing my video to a presidential campaign running a propeganda film about 9/11 on their biggest convention night when my video is a critique of it, he is comparing apples and oranges. Mad in the head!! Insane in the membrane :(

lol, his argument doesn't even make sense, because people are calling the Republicans on exploiting a TRAGEDY. Unless he's saying that exploiting a PROPAGANDA VIDEO is equally as morally bankrupt, he's got no case:huh:

Actually, it doesn't even make sense in any way as a comparison, but, at first, before you look into it, I suppose it does SOUND good.

[jaguarr]

Ramore, I was in NYC on 9/11. As much as I despise Guiliani and his policies, NYC as a whole did an amazing job on 9/11. I was in midtown Manhattan (near the Empire State Building), and this city could have turned into utter chaos with everything going on downtown...and we did fine. No rioting, no looting, none of the things you associate with a disaster. NY'ers were helping other NY'ers. My dad and I even went for pizza that afternoon.

I don't think I'd ever been prouder of my city as I was that day. Were we prepared? Hell no. But we did the best we could.

My wife is a native New Yorker. She was in Queens visiting her folks when the attacks took place. She was absolutely disgusted and even a bit traumatized by the Republican's usage of 9/11 as a political ploy, and she was ESPECIALLY disgusted with Giuliani. So many of my friends and family in and from NYC, including my wife, have said that the City of New York rose to the occasion to take care of their own DESPITE Giuliani and all his bulls**t grandstanding that he did in the days following the attacks instead of actually providing real leadership and planning when it was needed.

jag

[hippie_hunter]

So? Does that change anything he said? No, So why bring it up?
I brought it up because Olbermann is completely absurd. I used to like him because he used to be entertaining even if he is a liberal Bill O'Reilly. But thanks to the 2008 election he's just plain annoying now.

It's just my two cents but I don't think lazur was trolling with his post. I may not like the guy but I saw nothing wrong with the post in question.

That's just my opinion.:yay:
I agree, lazur was not trolling and the guy is entitled to his opinions.

[Matt]

I would hope that you're not suggesting otherwise Matt. If you are, I think we need to have a little talk.


Its not Republicans exploiting tragedy. It is the McCain Campaign and the Republican National Committee exploiting tragedy. There is a difference.

What does that even mean?

I guess documentary makers the world over are selfish bastards with an agenda? What the hell are you talking about?

Every documentarian DOES have an agenda. The point is, you cannot criticize them for exploiting tragedy, when you turn around and do the same thing to make them seem evil. You show images of 9/11 followed by Rudy Giulliani laughing maniacally. Thats just as bad. And you can say its a criticism of the Republican Party all you want, there are more tasteful ways to go about such a thing. You are exploiting the tragedy just as they are to prove your political point.

[kainedamo]

Every documentarian DOES have an agenda. The point is, you cannot criticize them for exploiting tragedy, when you turn around and do the same thing to make them seem evil. You show images of 9/11 followed by Rudy Giulliani laughing maniacally. Thats just as bad. And you can say its a criticism of the Republican Party all you want, there are more tasteful ways to go about such a thing. You are exploiting the tragedy just as they are to prove your political point.

Every documentarian DOES have an agenda. The point is, you cannot criticize them for exploiting tragedy, when you turn around and do the same thing to make them seem evil. You show images of 9/11 followed by Rudy Giulliani laughing maniacally. Thats just as bad. And you can say its a criticism of the Republican Party all you want, there are more tasteful ways to go about such a thing. You are exploiting the tragedy just as they are to prove your political point.

I'll have to correct you here, Matt.

I showed images of THEIR propeganda video, which disgustingly featured Rudy Giulliani, THEN I followed it up with Rudy laughing maniacally at his convention speech.

I was not exploiting a tragedy. I was exploiting their propeganda video which was exploiting the tragedy, which was the entire point of my comparison to 1984. My 'agenda' was to show that they were wrong to exploit the tragedy, while their agenda was to exploit the tragedy to get elected.

So you are comparing apples and oranges.

[Marx]

Its not Republicans exploiting tragedy. It is the McCain Campaign and the Republican National Committee exploiting tragedy. There is a difference.

And what then would you say about the Bush Administration?

[lazur]

And this is the politics thread, where we debate. If lazur wishes to repeat ridiculous statements like "democrats want to forget all about 9/11" then he better explain it. If not, I consider that trolling.

Actually, what I said was Democrats seem to avoid the topic - I did NOT say that Democrats want to 'forget'...

This is another classic example of how you take what someone else says, twist it around in meaning, and then apply your flawed perspective to the discussion.

Republican politicians talk about 9/11 too much. Democratic politicians don't talk about 9/11 enough.

There, is that better? Was that benign and neutral enough for you? Do you think you can take that away and NOT claim I said SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY?

And the definition of a troll is:



1. troll

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

2. troll

One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

Those are the top two definitions, but there are others. NONE of them apply to what I posted.

Objectivity for the win. Maybe you should get some.

And thanks to those (primarily Matt) who kept the discussion about whether or not I'm a 'troll' sane and logical.

[Tigerking]

With all due respect to the victims of this horrid attack, I think we are a bit overexposing this. We act like 9/11 was the end of the world. We forget that stuff like this happens in other countries nearly every week or month. At my school we had a 9/11tribute assembly. While i still feel like it was a hooendous attack, I believe its time that we let the wound heal by itself and that the goveremnt should stop showing it 24/7 for most of the week and acting like it was the day America died.

[Matt]

I'll have to correct you here, Matt.

I showed images of THEIR propeganda video, which disgustingly featured Rudy Giulliani, THEN I followed it up with Rudy laughing maniacally at his convention speech.

I was not exploiting a tragedy. I was exploiting their propeganda video which was exploiting the tragedy, which was the entire point of my comparison to 1984. My 'agenda' was to show that they were wrong to exploit the tragedy, while their agenda was to exploit the tragedy to get elected.

So you are comparing apples and oranges.


Not really. What you're doing is just as bad. People already know its messed up. You showing it, editted to make Republicans out to be monsters is no better. You're using 9/11 for your agenda. You are exploiting the deaths of 3,000 people. Not a political party, not some nameless "They,"...YOU, Kainedamo are doing it. You're just as bad as the RNC.

And what then would you say about the Bush Administration?

Just as disgusting.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

It is the McCain Campaign and the Republican National Committee exploiting tragedy. There is a difference.


And the Bush administration as well.

Which all equals Republicans.

So, I don't see a difference. Especially when the possible next leader of America, McCain running for President on the Republican ticket, is doing it.

I don't think there's anything wrong with people just saying the Republicans are doing it....because they are.

[Mr Sparkle]

Objectivity for the win. Maybe you should get some.

And thanks to those (primarily Matt) who kept the discussion about whether or not I'm a 'troll' sane and logical.

I don't think you are troll.
I just think you temporarily insane when election times come along.
I don't know why.
let's pretend Democrats "don't talk" about 9-11?
you know what? I don't talk about the death of my father often, doesn't mean It means any less to me.
and since 9-11 happened under the watchful eyes of GW well, seems like
they are doing the republicans a favor.

I mean, you voted for Clinton, you know what he did on the subject.
we have all heard what GW did and his GOP did back then, they ran on a platform of limited foreign intervention remember?
they were the "no unnecessary conflict" party remember?
and GW cut funding from counter terrorism in favor of a missile defense shield remember?
so, yeah, like you said, Objectivity for the win.
does anyone think that there's really a difference in which party you belong to when it comes to 9-11.
I mean, I live in freaking Mexico and I know people that died that day.

again, this is a no issue, and I as well noticed the "it began in Iran" ********, but the people that know their history know that it didn't begin there.

going to vote for McCain? awesome! vote for Obama? great
neither of them loves your country any less.
but I'll be honest, McCain has been using the ole GW strategy of scaring people into voting for him.
is that what you want to do? vote out of fear? fear often removes objectivity, specially the fear of the unknown.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I can't knock Olbermann.

I mean, it's a real rarity to see extreme lefties nowadays. There's so many, so very many, extreme right wingers...not really so many extreme left wingers. Most of the "extreme left wing" people that the Republicans get on aren't even that liberal. Rather conservative liberals really, count as extreme lefties lately...which they're not.

Not enough crazy lefties I say. We need more of em.

[kainedamo]

Not really. What you're doing is just as bad. People already know its messed up. You showing it, editted to make Republicans out to be monsters is no better. You're using 9/11 for your agenda. You are exploiting the deaths of 3,000 people. Not a political party, not some nameless "They,"...YOU, Kainedamo are doing it. You're just as bad as the RNC.

You're crazy. I don't find your argument very logical. I'm not using 9/11, THEY are using 9/11. That's the whole point.

What JLBats said...

lol, his argument doesn't even make sense, because people are calling the Republicans on exploiting a TRAGEDY. Unless he's saying that exploiting a PROPAGANDA VIDEO is equally as morally bankrupt, he's got no case

[JLBats]

I think he's trying to say that you're still exploiting 9/11 through what you're doing.

But I honestly don't see it:dry:

Isn't there a place for accountability, and holding up what other people have done for scrutiny? To me, that's what Olbermann and kainedamo were doing.

I understand wanting a world without back and forth exploitation and propaganda... but it seems almost like Matt wants a world so mellow about this kind of thing that the debate is almost silent.

Accountability means something. Exposing lies means something. You know? I don't think pointing out that the Republicans are exploiting this, even forcefully, is even remotely comparable to what they're doing.

[DACrowe]

I think some are trying to make it too political on both sides, but mostly the Dems. who trumpet too loudly the Repubs.'s opportunism.

Love or hate Olbermann though, he has a point. That tribute video wasn't a tribute to anything but Republicans's ego and another fear smear. Pretty sleazy opportunism. It is just the way it is.

[Matt]

I think he's trying to say that you're still exploiting 9/11 through what you're doing.

But I honestly don't see it:dry:

Isn't there a place for accountability, and holding up what other people have done for scrutiny? To me, that's what Olbermann and kainedamo were doing.

I understand wanting a world without back and forth exploitation and propaganda... but it seems almost like Matt wants a world so mellow about this kind of thing that the debate is almost silent.

Accountability means something. Exposing lies means something. You know? I don't think pointing out that the Republicans are exploiting this, even forcefully, is even remotely comparable to what they're doing.

Lets say a serial killer murders someone. I find the victim before the police, take a bunch of pictures, and put them on Ebay. Am I free of wrong doing? There are ways to call out Republicans for a sick video outside of editting it into your own sick video to trash Republicans.

[JLBats]

Lets say a serial killer murders someone. I find the victim before the police, take a bunch of pictures, and put them on Ebay. Am I free of wrong doing? There are ways to call out Republicans for a sick video outside of editting it into your own sick video to trash Republicans.

I definitely do not agree that said analogy remotely equates to this situation.

[Matt]

I definitely do not agree that said analogy remotely equates to this situation.

Sure it does. Kaine did not give a commentary on the video like Olbermann. He did not add anything remotely intellectual to it. He replayed it, and spliced in a few pictures to make Republicans come off as evil in order to fit his political agenda. He exploited tragedy just as the McCain camp who made the video did.

[hippie_hunter]

I can't knock Olbermann.

I mean, it's a real rarity to see extreme lefties nowadays. There's so many, so very many, extreme right wingers...not really so many extreme left wingers. Most of the "extreme left wing" people that the Republicans get on aren't even that liberal. Rather conservative liberals really, count as extreme lefties lately...which they're not.

Not enough crazy lefties I say. We need more of em.

I think we'd be better off without any crazy lefties and extreme right wingers. The extremes of both political spectrums are incredibly annoying if you ask me :nono:

[hippie_hunter]

I don't think you are troll.
I just think you temporarily insane when election times come along.
I don't know why.

Mr. Sparkle insulting like that is a no-no :nono:

Let's act like adults here people.

[Excel]

Was never a fan of Olberman anyways, back to his espn days.

[The Geek Vault]

wow he's so right!

[Visionary]

Yeah, John McCain is exploiting 9/11, terrorism and he's scaring Americans into voting for him, and it's working. I don't blame McCain, it's simply what the REPS do. And scared ass Americans fall for it every election. Bin Laden has really done a number on most Americans, this is why I say we are far from winning the war on terrorism. If that man can put fear in you without doing a single thing 7 years after 9/11, how the hell can we be winning, when we're scarred turdless?

I also laugh at the fact that McCain keeps saying that he can protect America and catch Bin Laden, like Bin Laden cares weather you're POW or not. What's he going to do that President Bush or the DEMS can't do. Does he have some secret giant robot that we don't know about? :dry:

[Handsome Rob]

Yeah, John McCain is exploiting 9/11, terrorism and he's scaring Americans into voting for him, and it's working. I don't blame McCain, it's simply what the REPS do. And scared ass Americans fall for it every election. Bin Laden has really done a number on most Americans, this is why I say we are far from winning the war on terrorism. If that man can put fear in you without doing a single thing 7 years after 9/11, how the hell can we be winning, when we're scarred turdless?

I also laugh at the fact that McCain keeps saying that he can protect America and catch Bin Laden, like Bin Laden cares weather you're POW or not. What's he going to do that President Bush or the DEMS can't do. Does he have some secret giant robot that we don't know about? :dry:

Both side use fear tactics and tragedy to try to gain victory. How many elections has a Democrat warned about how the Republicans want to "take away your social security?" And, I seem to remember the Dems using the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina to attack the Republicans (and Pres. Bush in particular).

Both parties have their hands dirty--exploitation is not the sole domain of either party.

[hitmanyr2k]

Both side use fear tactics and tragedy to try to gain victory. How many elections has a Democrat warned about how the Republicans want to "take away your social security?" And, I seem to remember the Dems using the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina to attack the Republicans (and Pres. Bush in particular).

Both parties have their hands dirty--exploitation is not the sole domain of either party.

I think Democrats AND Republicans attacked Bush for Katrina making the point that if we couldn't mobilize resources to help after a hurricane then how are we supposed to be prepared to help people after a terrorist attack? It was a valid point that came from both sides.

[Addendum]

Plus while New Orleans was dealing with the immediate effects of Katrina, the president and McCain were having some cake.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com//gadgets/slideshows/155/webpix//slide_155_0.jpeg

And then there was the flyover

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/20050831bush_airforce1_orleans.jpg

Any criticism was warranted

[kainedamo]

Lets say a serial killer murders someone. I find the victim before the police, take a bunch of pictures, and put them on Ebay. Am I free of wrong doing? There are ways to call out Republicans for a sick video outside of editting it into your own sick video to trash Republicans.

You're entiteld to your opinion.

[BULLITT]

Olbermann is great at football analysis.

So ends this highjacking.

[Batgort]

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous... for how many years have we had pro-conservative news media either ignoring or letting the bush presidency off easy. You get a couple of relatively minor comments (nothing compared to say Bill Maher) and everyone freaks out.

Everyone says the media is liberal, but I just don't see it. Fox is conservative, CNN is neutral leaning to conservative in many cases. The only ray of light is Olbermann and Matthews, and really it's all Olbermann.

Olbermann is bringing in tons of ratings for MSNBC now, and I hope he continues to do so.

Worst thread... IN THE WORLD!

[BlackLantern]

Olbermann is turning into a bully...just like O'Reilly....his 'Worst Person in the World' segment is just as immature as OReillys 'pinhead' segment....you just happen to agree with Olbermann so it doesn't seeem like bullying to you

[Batgort]

I agree Olbermann is just as bullying as O'Reilly, but for as long as one side of the debate exists with that strength in their voice, we need an equal and opposing side. Otherwise, we're skewing in one direction or the other.

[BlackLantern]

and MSNBC is dead last among the cable news stations in ratings....they average about 400,000 in primetime as opposed to the 1.6 to 1.8 million that Fox News does in primetime

[Addendum]

Which gets beat by Monday Night Football and the WWF

[BlackLantern]

It's all about priorities....

[Carcharodon]

Double post.

[Carcharodon]

Both side use fear tactics and tragedy to try to gain victory. How many elections has a Democrat warned about how the Republicans want to "take away your social security?" And, I seem to remember the Dems using the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina to attack the Republicans (and Pres. Bush in particular).

Both parties have their hands dirty--exploitation is not the sole domain of either party. Right, because Katrina didn't warrant scrutiny and criticism. Oh, and are you seriously going to compare the social security thing to 9/11? Really?

I understand your point, but even you have to understand that the way you're making it is ridiculous. You can't compare a fear of death to a fear of losing your social security.

Apples, oranges, etc.

[SentinelMind]

So..uhm...Olbermann complains about the partisanship of 9/11 by attacking the Mayor Rudy and Republicans for not doing enough about national security? m..k.

[rdh007]

I think the attack on Rudy for exploiting 9/11 for personal and party gain is legit. The whole party? Probably not.

[Carcharodon]

I think the attack on Rudy for exploiting 9/11 for personal and party gain is legit. The whole party? Probably not.Um...what? For the past 7 to 8 years that's been Bush's ace in the hole. The whole Bush administration has hidden shamelessly behind 9/11 as a means to further their agenda. Any time somebody spoke out against them they'd inanely babble "9/11! 9/11!!!!!!!!!!!!! Unpatriotic!!!!" until they'd froth at the mouth.

That "Tribute?" Yeah. More of the same.

[kainedamo]

I have been informed that part of my youtube video has appeared on MSNBC.

Is there a way I can confirm this? If just one of you guys saw it on MSNBC that would be great. But it would be better if there was a link somewhere to a vid of it actually being shown on MSNBC.

[kainedamo]

Damnit, I think the guy was just pulling my chain. Nevermind.

[ShadowBoxing]

Feel free to discuss the liberal news networks, in any fashion (for or against) in here.

*This includes MSNBC, The Daily Show, The New York Times, etc.

[The Battousai]

http://politicaldemotivation.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/keith_olbermann.jpg


:up:

http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2008/mayjun/images/pc/PC-MADDOW.jpg


O, how can one express fully thine love for thee? :heart:

[The Senator]

The fact that some consider CNN to be "fake news" or "liberally biased" astounds me, considering it has spent more time discussing Obama's "socialist" policies in the past week than FOX News and MSNBC combined.

[Backdrifter]

When I watch Olberman, I get the distinct feeling that I am not getting the entire story.

[Marx]

When I watch Olberman, I get the distinct feeling that I am not getting the entire story.

When I watch Bill O' Reilly, I KNOW that I am not getting the entire story.

[hippie_hunter]

http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2008/mayjun/images/pc/PC-MADDOW.jpg

I don't like her.

[The Battousai]

I don't like her.

Breaking News, that is

[ShadowBoxing]

The fact that some consider CNN to be "fake news" or "liberally biased" astounds me, considering it has spent more time discussing Obama's "socialist" policies in the past week than FOX News and MSNBC combined.
I hate CNN for the most part. I find them way too sensationalist. They will literally try to make a story out of anything. Every time Obama is ahead in the race they will act like somehow 'the Bradley effect' will make him lose by 40 points on election day and get every wahoo on their show on to support this wacky thesis.

[hippie_hunter]

Breaking News, that is

It's not even because of what she says either. Just seeing her is just..ugh.

[luke1234]

at least to me olberman is more entertaining then Riely is

[gap5ewl]

CNN is Liberal?? Since When?:huh:

[souvlaki]

I don't like her.

I actually agree with you. I didn't mind her as a political pundit, but since she has gotten her own show she strikes me as nothing more than a female Olbermann, and not even as entertaining. I do not understand how she has the top rated show on MSNBC.

[Anita18]

I :heart: Rick Sanchez. He's just so animated about the news, without being obviously biased like Keith Olbermann.

But I'd argue that Jon Stewart is a more seething ball of hate than Olbermann is. :woot:

[DACrowe]

Did you just lump in the NYT with MSNBC?

Look, the editorial board is almost entirely liberal at the Times (though the brilliant moderate conservative David Brooks and the idiot conservative William Kristol both write columns for it) and occasionally one can find bias in their reporting.

But for the most part it is the damn finest newspaper in the country. The only papers that can give it a run for its money are The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.

That's right I mean damn fine journalism, in which case WSJ is on par with NYT. I don't say NYT is great because it's liberal, it is great because it has in-depth, detailed and consitantly amazingly accomplished journalism that delves far deeper into stories than most newspapers. And, alongside the Post and LA Times, is one of the last newspapers that have foreign correspondence and international bureaus. Simply put if you just read the NYT cover to cover or browse through most of their site in one day, you'll be better informed than if you watch the American news networks for 8 hours a day.

Then you add the best columnist, and editorial page in the country...and you lump it in with CNN and MSNBC?

BTW CNN is trashy theatrical reporting, but it is not nearly as "liberally biased," as people say. Republicans like to stir up the myth of a media bias as an excuse for their inadequacies and inability to measure up. What happens when Sarah Palin gets vetted in the media and dirt turns up? The media is sexist. What happens when they reveal she is about to be a grandmother, even though they released a press release before anyone even reported it? The media is sexist for reporting it. Then what happens after she bombs an interview from Katie Couric, what with her follow-up questions? She is run by sexists and was playing her "gotcha journalism" as a liberal elitist.

It is the classic ploy: kill the messenger. If they discredit the fact-checkers, the American public will believe the politician's lies. And what is sad is that it works every two years.

With that said MSNBC is incredibly liberally biased, it does exist. But no more so than Fox is slanted towards the right. But the notion that the media as a whole is extremely-liberally biased is again a myth so that politicians can get away with lying. Given that advertisers control the media, it is probably more conservative in some respects (even if the reporters are generally liberal in their political ideologies). And being so leads to a lot of the dumbed down and safe/lazy journalism that has taken over the industry in the last 15 years.

[redfirebird2008]

I actually agree with you. I didn't mind her as a political pundit, but since she has gotten her own show she strikes me as nothing more than a female Olbermann, and not even as entertaining. I do not understand how she has the top rated show on MSNBC.

WTF are you talking about? She has a far better temperament than Olbermann or any other pundit on TV right now. They could all learn from her in the "class" department. She has Republicans on there all the time and lets them spout their talking points without shouting at them like O'Reilly or Hannity.

[redfirebird2008]

With that said MSNBC is incredibly liberally biased, it does exist. But no more so than Fox is slanted towards the right. But the notion that the media as a whole is extremely-liberally biased is again a myth so that politicians can get away with lying. Given that advertisers control the media, it is probably more conservative in some respects (even if the reporters are generally liberal in their political ideologies). And being so leads to a lot of the dumbed down and safe/lazy journalism that has taken over the industry in the last 15 years.

There is a slight difference between MSNBC and Fox. MSNBC has Scarborough on there from 6 AM to 9 AM every morning, spinning everything in the conservative direction. There's not a single show on Fox that spins things in anything other than the conservative direction. I would also argue that David Gregory (6-7 PM on MSNBC) is a McCain fanboy from what I've seen. He almost always spins things to McCain's favor and against Obama. Matthews, Olbermann, and Maddow are obviously biased to the left.

[The Battousai]

WTF are you talking about? She has a far better temperament than Olbermann or any other pundit on TV right now. They could all learn from her in the "class" department. She has Republicans on there all the time and lets them spout their talking points without shouting at them like O'Reilly or Hannity.

Exactly - ESPECIALLY her "It's Pat!" segment :hehe:

[BlackestNight]

When I watch Olberman, I get the distinct feeling that I am not getting the entire story.

I second that :up:

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I love Maddows.

Oh....how I love her so.

Olbermann is awesome too.

And yes...I'm aware it's full to the left. But, it's good to see somebody is.

[Malice]

olbermann was fired from espn...right?

[Addendum]

I think he left after "napalming" the bridges and rivers with the management there. It wasn't just a simple firing.

Not literal "napalm" but simply destroying any chance of going back to work there

[ChrisBaleBatman]

He's like Stone Cold Steve Austin or something.

Stunning his bosses everywhere he goes.

[Goddessreicho]

Oblermann makes me giggle, Rachel makes me think. I also like her first name; it's very similar to mine. :D

[BlackestNight]

I :heart: Rick Sanchez. He's just so animated about the news, without being obviously biased like Keith Olbermann.

But I'd argue that Jon Stewart is a more seething ball of hate than Olbermann is. :woot:

Jon Stewart is more of a seething ball of yucks :oldrazz:

[StorminNorman]

Both sides of aisle rip MSNBC
Keith Olbermann also criticized at media luncheon

By Paul Bond

Oct 27, 2008, 08:26 PM ET
Related
More 2008 election coverage
In a room full of television industry executives, no one seemed inclined to defend MSNBC on Monday for what some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential election.

The cable news channel is "completely out of control," said writer-producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat.

She added that she would prefer a lunch date with right-leaning Fox News star Sean Hannity over left-leaning MSNBC star Keith Olbermann.

Olbermann was criticized by many who attended Monday's luncheon sponsored by the Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors at the Beverly Hills Hotel. The event was dubbed "Hollywood, America and Election '08."

Bloodworth-Thomason and others seemed especially critical of the way MSNBC -- and other media -- has attacked Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin while demeaning her supporters.

"We should stop the demonizing," she said, adding that Democrats have been worse than Republicans as far as personal attacks on candidates are concerned. "It diminishes us," she said of her fellow Democrats.

Bloodworth-Thomason even suggested a defense of Palin and her supporters should be written into TV programming, just as she went out of her way to portray Southern women as smart in her hit TV show "Designing Women."

Attendee Michael Reagan, the radio talk-show host and son of President Ronald Reagan, said he no longer will appear as a guest on MSNBC because "I actually get death threats."

"I'll stop sending them," joked Larry Gelbart, the writer, producer and director best known for the "M*A*S*H" television series and such movie screenplays as "Tootsie" and "Oh, God!"

Pollster Frank Luntz, a regular guest on the Fox News, joked that MSNBC is "the only network with more letters in its name than viewers."

On a more serious note, Luntz said it's a problem that the electorate chooses to watch news programs not for information but to confirm already-held beliefs, and that applies to viewers of CNN and Fox News as well.

Luntz predicted a Barack Obama victory and said that one of the many reasons the Democrats have been more effective with their message is because, while Republicans dominate talk radio, Democrats have begun to dominate the Internet.

"I'd rather have the Internet," he said.

Obama also gets credit because he's a better communicator than past Democrats, Luntz said, comparing the previous Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, to one of those trees that threw apples at Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz."

Actress Patricia Heaton noted that Hollywood workers too often just assume everyone they work with is a like-minded liberal. When those around her belittle John McCain or Palin, she politely reminds them that she's a Republican.

"That's what you have to do in our town," she said.

Actor Beau Bridges lamented that there is "too much entertainment" in elections nowadays. "Just put 'em in a room -- like we are now -- and let 'em talk about the issues," he said.

Some of the most spirited debate came from the panel's moderator, outspoken conservative Lionel Chetwynd. The writer, director and producer passionately defended the Iraq War and Palin, whom he called "the ideal Jeffersonian political figure."

Chetwynd's performance prompted Gelbart to joke that Chetwynd was the most "immoderate moderator" he had ever seen.

"It's a liberal organization," Chetwynd said of the Caucus. "But I'm trying."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i28df3fc9f6707d1478700b7bc78273ae

[danoyse]

Obama also gets credit because he's a better communicator than past Democrats, Luntz said, comparing the previous Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, to one of those trees that threw apples at Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz."


:lmao:

MSNBC's biggest problem is that they're trying to be the anti-Fox...by being the same thing as Fox, only with opposite views. I never watch them.

[lazur]

:lmao:

MSNBC's biggest problem is that they're trying to be the anti-Fox...by being the same thing as Fox, only with opposite views. I never watch them.

The Center For Media And Public Affairs disagrees with you:

http://www.cmpa.com/studies_election_12_21_07.htm

Fox is nowhere NEAR as biased as MSNBC.

[The Senator]

Hey lazur, how does it feel to live in "fake America?" You know, NOVA these days isn't considered "real" enough for the McCain-Palin campaign.

[lazur]

Hey lazur, how does it feel to live in "fake America?" You know, NOVA these days isn't considered "real" enough for the McCain-Palin campaign.

They've campaigned here, and I already know how I'm voting, so I could care less about this 'fake American' garbage. But since you asked, I'm sure Obama classifies me in with those types who 'cling to their guns and religion' - except that I'm not religious and I own a handgun for home protection.

[The Senator]

They've campaigned here, and I already know how I'm voting, so I could care less about this 'fake American' garbage. But since you asked, I'm sure Obama classifies me in with those types who 'cling to their guns and religion' - except that I'm not religious and I own a handgun for home protection.

You have it wrong. Because you aren't religious, and because you don't sleep with an automatic weapon under your bed, you're just as fake an American as your NOVA brethren.

[lazur]

You have it wrong. Because you aren't religious, and because you don't sleep with an automatic weapon under your bed, you're just as fake an American as your NOVA brethren.

Well, my gun ain't fake, so I guess it doesn't matter. :p

[SuBe]

What's this NOVA business? The TV channel?

[FaT_tONle]

Anyone see this Fox New Obama Camp faceoff???

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=10409670&ch=4226716&src=news

[Addendum]

What's this NOVA business? The TV channel?

NOrthern VirginiA

[Nivek]

When I watch Olberman, I get the distinct feeling that I am not getting the entire story.

Qhen I watch Bill O'Rielly, I'm reminded of the wad of dog crap that I cant dig out of the tread of my boot.

[ShadowBoxing]

Ben Affleck Spoofing Kieth Olbermann
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/02/saturday-night-lives-olbe_n_140102.html

[Nivek]

just a bit over the top, but kinda funny.

[Schlosser85]

I actually thought the Affleck as Olbermann skit was hysterical, and I don't even generally particularly like Affleck.

[ShadowBoxing]

"Pol Pot, Russia under Stalin, or Massachusetts under Mitt Romney"

[DACrowe]

Affleck does very well on SNL (I suppose they groom him to be their next Baldwin?) and he had the best sketch of the night with this.

[kedrell]

The fact that some consider CNN to be "fake news" or "liberally biased" astounds me, considering it has spent more time discussing Obama's "socialist" policies in the past week than FOX News and MSNBC combined.

CNN's gotten better in the last 10 years, there's no doubt but in the 90's it basically was an acronym for the Clinton News Network. A lot of people still haven't gotten over them being basically apologists for his administration. MSNBC has always been part of the left.

[Holiday]

I only watch CNN. I think they're fair for the most part.




I don't care for Lou Dobbs though.

[comicgirl]

Feel free to discuss the liberal news networks, in any fashion (for or against) in here.It kills me how CNN, etc. get labeled "liberal". Maybe because they don't cater exclusively to the lunatic fringe?

[comicgirl]

I only watch CNN. I think they're fair for the most part.




I don't care for Lou Dobbs though.yeah, I'm waiting for that old SOB to get his own show on Fox anyday now.:cmad::cmad:

[Honey Vibe]

I don't like her.
Rachel Maddows was more approachable as a commentator than a news anchor. I'll admit I was elated when she got her own show, but the liberal bias of MSNBC, respectively, controls and taints her higher intellectuality.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I dunno if I'd go so far as to say that MSNBC is trying to be the anti-fox.

Perhaps they're primetime lineup is?

I mean, With Matthews, Olbermann and Maddows yeah.

But besides them? I dunno if there's that level of mandate across the entire channel that we know is in Fox News.

And I've never seen someone get they're mic cut for making a valid point on MSNBC. I just think Fox News is on a whole different level. Not that it's a good thing or a bad thing. I honestly don't give a damn.

[Superman]

Chris Matthews mulling "Hardball" future


NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) – MSNBC may find out soon whether "Hardball" host Chris Matthews returns to the invigorated channel.

Matthews, 63, is said to be considering an offer from NBC to remain as host of "Hardball," a job he's held for more than a decade, or to return to his native Pennsylvania to run for the U.S. Senate against GOP incumbent Arlen Specter.

There are indications that a decision could come soon, sometime before Inaugural Day on January 20. But MSNBC president Phil Griffin declined late last week to say whether that's true.

"I've talked to Chris. I think he's going to be here for a long time," Griffin said. "I want him to be here for a long time." Griffin said that there would be "clarity" soon.

Matthews, who is believed to make roughly $5 million a year, declined an interview, according to a spokesman.

He has hosted "Hardball" since 1997, first on CNBC and then on MSNBC. He also hosts "The Chris Matthews Show," a syndicated Sunday-morning public affairs program.

Meanwhile, MSNBC is in the strongest position it's been in years. It's likely to finish 2008 as cable's fastest-growing network in the ratings, thanks to shows like "Hardball," "Countdown" and newcomer, "The Rachel Maddow Show."

"Hardball," for instance, has been up 89% in total viewers in its 7 p.m. showing to 804,000 compared to 2007.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081221/tv_nm/us_matthews_2





It might be a fun race to watch if he runs. I hope he doesn't run though, I like him on Hardball.:dry:

[bunk]

Yes, I think I prefer he continue doing the show. His running for the seat would have a direct impact on my own life though, so it would be interesting.

[The Senator]

Opinion polls show he'd be the strongest candidate against Specter. However, I think a lot of the other potential candidates-- Alyson Schwartz, Patrick Murphy, and Joe Sestak-- would be strong challengers once they got their names out there. I personally do not want to see Matthews in the Senate. Much like Al Franken, I do not see how Chris Matthews is qualified for the seat.

[SuBe]

How can anyone say that he is an objective journalist if he is running or considering running for a Political Position?

[The Senator]

How can anyone say that he is an objective journalist if he is running or considering running for a Political Position?

Well that's just it though: He isn't a journalist, he's a pundit. And when MSNBC decided to make Matthews a 'reporter' during the presidential campaign, they should have realized that his political biases would get in the way of objective coverage.

Now, Matthews is legally allowed to be on the air until he officially declares his candidacy. Until then, though, he can continue to host his show without penalty.

[souvlaki]

How can anyone say that he is an objective journalist if he is running or considering running for a Political Position?

I wasn't aware anyone had made that claim before. I enjoy his show, but I've never thought for a second he was a politically neutral journalist. I always saw him as more of a pundit than a journalist.

[DACrowe]

Well Chris is an egotistical crazy bastard...but he's one of my favorite's. He's less full of himself than Olbermann and simply smarter than O'Reilly and Hannity. But I won't lose sleep over this.

However, I have doubts about Matthews being able to win an election given his reputation. We'll see.

[Superman]

Opinion polls show he'd be the strongest candidate against Specter. However, I think a lot of the other potential candidates-- Alyson Schwartz, Patrick Murphy, and Joe Sestak-- would be strong challengers once they got their names out there. I personally do not want to see Matthews in the Senate. Much like Al Franken, I do not see how Chris Matthews is qualified for the seat.I think he's more qualified for a seat in the Senate than Caroline Kennedy or Al Franken.

He served on the staffs of four Democratic members of Congress, He was a presidential speechwriter for four years for Carter and he worked six years as a top aide to Tip O'Neill. He knows how DC works.

I think he would do a good job in the Senate if he won. :yay:

[Matt]

As a Pennsylvanian I probably won't vote for him. Specter does well enough, is one of the few politicans on either side willing to work across party lines and stand up to his own party, and because of his seniority he brings a lot of federal money into the state. It would be a bad move to vote him out, IMO.

[hippie_hunter]

I wouldn't mind Matthews in the Senate. Sure he's biased, but he isn't annoying at all like Olbermann and O'Reilly are. And as Superman said, he'd be better than Caroline Kennedy and Al Franken.

However, I don't want to see him replace Arlen Specter. We need Republicans like him.

[The Senator]

However, I don't want to see him replace Arlen Specter. We need Republicans like him.

Old, decrepit and dying? Why, that's half the Republican caucus...

[Matt]

Specter is a good senator though. He serves his constituents well and votes based on what is right, not based on how his party tells him to vote. Both PA Senators have been like that so far (especially when it comes to abortion with Bob Casey). To vote out a good senator because he has an R by his name is party politics at its finest and is what will destroy our country.

That said...I am disappointed that Specter spent a good portion of last year holding Senate hearings regarding the New England Patriots taping their opponents.

[hippie_hunter]

Old, decrepit and dying? Why, that's half the Republican caucus...

LOL :woot:

Seriously though, we need Republicans that will work across the isle and aren't a bunch of neo-conservative assbags. Moderate Republicans took a beating in recent years with the loss of Lincoln Chaffe, Christopher Shays, and John Sununu. Along with John McCain turning himself into a neo-conservative to run for President :csad:

[Spider-Bite]

Opinion polls show he'd be the strongest candidate against Specter. However, I think a lot of the other potential candidates-- Alyson Schwartz, Patrick Murphy, and Joe Sestak-- would be strong challengers once they got their names out there. I personally do not want to see Matthews in the Senate. Much like Al Franken, I do not see how Chris Matthews is qualified for the seat.

How could he not be qualified? This guy probably knows the ins and outs of politics better than most people who are already in the senate. He knows how it works, he knows where he stands and how the government works, and he's had plenty of time to analyze every position, angle, and issue that is relevant.

Really if you've never been elected to office before, you can't start off any more qualified than he already is.

[Spider-Bite]

I think he's more qualified for a seat in the Senate than Caroline Kennedy or Al Franken.

He served on the staffs of four Democratic members of Congress, He was a presidential speechwriter for four years for Carter and he worked six years as a top aide to Tip O'Neill. He knows how DC works.

I think he would do a good job in the Senate if he won. :yay:

You know what would be a nice change? He wont be able to get away with as much lying as most politicians do either.

Think about it, if he stands up and says he's opposed to gay marriage, it would easily be exposed as a lie, because he's been ranting and raving about his beliefs for years on the air.

And prior to the invasion of Iraq, when most of America got it wrong, he got it right! :yay: He knew that signatures on documents from NIgeria could easily be faked, and he was educated enough to see through the "links to alquida" claims.

Hell if I knew as much about the world back then as I do now, I'd have known it was bogus too. Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were not on the same side. They weren't even civil to each other. If Osama had set foot in Saddma's Iraq, he'd have had his tongue cut out and his head chopped off and then dogs would have eaten his corpse.

[hippie_hunter]

Actually, while Osama and Saddam were not on the same side and were complete opposites, they did have a mutual agreement of non-aggression against each other.

Saddam didn't want a rebellious religious faction within his country like in Egypt and Saudi Arabia in his secular republic and al-Qaeda wanted to deal more with pushing the West out of the Middle East first.

[Spider-Bite]

Actually, while Osama and Saddam were not on the same side and were complete opposites, they did have a mutual agreement of non-aggression against each other.

Saddam didn't want a rebellious religious faction within his country like in Egypt and Saudi Arabia in his secular republic and al-Qaeda wanted to deal more with pushing the West out of the Middle East first.

I'd have to search for a link, but to quote Howard Dean from back in his days running for President; "Alquida was making assination attempts on Saddam Hussein."

If Osama Bin Laden had set foot in Iraq he'd have been killed. Saddam refused to let him establish a base of operations in Iraq, and he did not like that.

If saddam was part of some agreement of non agression it was probably more along the lines of "stay the **** out of my country and I wont cut your head off."

[hippie_hunter]

I'd have to search for a link, but to quote Howard Dean from back in his days running for President; "Alquida was making assination attempts on Saddam Hussein."
This Howard Dean we're talking about. The man was kinda off IMO before his scream

If Osama Bin Laden had set foot in Iraq he'd have been killed. Saddam refused to let him establish a base of operations in Iraq, and he did not like that.

If saddam was part of some agreement of non agression it was probably more along the lines of "stay the **** out of my country and I wont cut your head off."

It was more along the lines of the Nazi-Soviet pact where they agreed to leave each other alone for mutually beneficial reasons. Saddam didn't want an extremist Islamic group in his country that would pose a genuine threat to him and al-Qaeda wanted to focus more on Saudi Arabia and the Western powers. Neither probably didn't want to focus the resources to fight each other.

Of course in my opinion al-Qaeda would have been like the Nazis and would have totally turned on Saddam if they had the oppourtunity like how Hitler turned on Stalin.

[Spider-Bite]

[quote=hippie_hunter;16172630]This Howard Dean we're talking about. The man was kinda off IMO before his scream
No he wasn't. Howard Dean is a brilliant man who wrote Obama's 50 state strategy which helped him whip McCain's arse in the electoral contest. Howard Dean had been preparing, organizing, and laying down the groundwork and infastructure for this moment for the last four years, while many other democrats, and even his own staff disagreed. Some even left the DNC out of anger prior to the 06 election.

As governor he increased the number of jobs in his state by 20% during his time in power. Inherited a state deficit and turned it into a surplus, while lowering taxes twice. With education reforms he got graduation rates up and teen pregnancies down. He created the success by six program which lowered the number of young children being molested in vermont by 50'%.

And oh yeah, when most of America got it wrong on Iraq, he got it right. This guy wasn't off. He was on the whole time. A little passion with a little media spin for ratings, and he got falsely labeled a lunatic.




It was more along the lines of the Nazi-Soviet pact where they agreed to leave each other alone for mutually beneficial reasons. Saddam didn't want an extremist Islamic group in his country that would pose a genuine threat to him and al-Qaeda wanted to focus more on Saudi Arabia and the Western powers. Neither probably didn't want to focus the resources to fight each other.

Of course in my opinion al-Qaeda would have been like the Nazis and would have totally turned on Saddam if they had the oppourtunity like how Hitler turned on Stalin.

alqueda wanted saddam gone so they could do what they did after he left. Move to Iraq.

[StorminNorman]

Its funny, just the other day I was thinking how much we needed more white, large, pompous windbags in Washington :up:

Mathews Twenty-Twelve!

[StorminNorman]

[quote]
No he wasn't. Howard Dean is a brilliant man who wrote Obama's 50 state strategy which helped him whip McCain's arse in the electoral contest.

Yes, it had little to do with the fact John McCain ran one of the worst campaigns in the last century coupled with the fact last election was the hardest political climate for a Republican candidate since Watergate. :huh:

[Carcharodon]

Its funny, just the other day I was thinking how much we needed more white, large, pompous windbags in Washington :up:That's probably why you voted for McCain. :up:

Of course, I'm simply making an assumption. :yay:

[Spider-Bite]

[quote=Spider-Bite;16172772]

Yes, it had little to do with the fact John McCain ran one of the worst campaigns in the last century coupled with the fact last election was the hardest political climate for a Republican candidate since Watergate. :huh:

that doesn't change the fact that if it wasn't for Howard Dean's miraculous job as chairman, Obama would not have won some of the states he won. His electoral margin would not have been that big.

He beat Mcain by 7 points, and wound up with twice as many electoral votes as McCain. That's because of Dean's 50 state strategy which also helped dems in the senate and the house.

[StorminNorman]

That's probably why you voted for McCain. :up:

Of course, I'm simply making an assumption. :yay:

LOL, this is hilarious considering I, as I have stated several times, did not vote for McCain. :wow: In fact I was MORE likely to vote for Obama than McCain.

that doesn't change the fact that if it wasn't for Howard Dean's miraculous job as chairman, Obama would not have won some of the states he won. His electoral margin would not have been that big.

He beat Mcain by 7 points, and wound up with twice as many electoral votes as McCain. That's because of Dean's 50 state strategy which also helped dems in the senate and the house.

But there is no reason to look at this election which featured the most attractive candidate to African American's and young voters ever, featured a candidate that transcended politics like Obama, featured an opposing party whose name was somewhat similar to that of garbage and see "wow, Howard Dean did a fantastic job".

You can't look at a single election, especially an election where every single advantage went to Obama, and crown a campaign strategy a great success.

[Carcharodon]

LOL, this is hilarious considering I, as I have stated several times, did not vote for McCain. :wow: In fact I was MORE likely to vote for Obama than McCain.Curses! Foiled again! :cmad:

[Spider-Bite]

LOL, this is hilarious considering I, as I have stated several times, did not vote for McCain. :wow: In fact I was MORE likely to vote for Obama than McCain.



But there is no reason to look at this election which featured the most attractive candidate to African American's and young voters ever, featured a candidate that transcended politics like Obama, featured an opposing party whose name was somewhat similar to that of garbage and see "wow, Howard Dean did a fantastic job".

You can't look at a single election, especially an election where every single advantage went to Obama, and crown a campaign strategy a great success.

I don't think every single advantage went to Obama.

1. he's black
2. his name sounds muslim
3. a big chunk of the country thought he was a muslim terrorist
4. fox news tried to label him a terrorist 24/7 in the weeks leading up to the election
5 William Ayers
6. Reverend Wright
7. His aunt was an illegal alien living in the united states
8. violence was down in Iraq


And Howard Dean did do a fantastic job. The only real big advantages were Sarah Palin, McCain's suspending his campaign, Obama's voice, and the economy.

[StorminNorman]

I don't think every single advantage went to Obama.

1. he's black Which helped him more than it hurt him. His skin color allowed him to become more than simply a political figure, as well as gave him 90%+ of the black vote which came out to vote in above average numbers. If Barack was not black, he would of never been the Democratic candidate.
2. his name sounds muslim
Which hurt him in the intolerant areas of the country, most of which went Red anyway.
3. a big chunk of the country thought he was a muslim terrorist
A big chunk being a small number of right wing nut jobs.
4. fox news tried to label him a terrorist 24/7 in the weeks leading up to the election
LOL this isn't even intelligent.
5 William Ayers
Which no one seemed to care about, no matter how hard McCain tried. William Ayers was nothing compared to McCain's association with Bush.
6. Reverend Wright
Which was a controversy well into the primaries after he had all but clinched the nomination, making it almost entirely irrelevant when November came around.
7. His aunt was an illegal alien living in the united states
And no one cared.
8. violence was down in Iraq
The majority of American's don't know this as the Iraq War still remains greatly unpopular.

And Howard Dean did do a fantastic job. The only real big advantages were Sarah Palin, McCain's suspending his campaign, Obama's voice, and the economy.

You once again prove you know nothing about politics.

[The Senator]

So about Chris Matthews.........

[Holiday]

So about Chris Matthews.........

Ummm... If he runs Darrell Hammond will be on SNL more. That'll be good.

[StorminNorman]

Can we get Olbermann to run for Congress at the same time?

[Spider-Bite]

[quote=StorminNorman Returns;16173782]Which helped him more than it hurt him. His skin color allowed him to become more than simply a political figure, as well as gave him 90%+ of the black vote which came out to vote in above average numbers.

That's not because he's black. He's a democrat. Obama got 96% of the black vote. In 06 democrats got 88% of the black vote. Overall black voter turn out increased by only 2% since the 06 election. And remember that blacks only make up 13% of the population. Deomcrats have been winning the black vote ever since the civil rights movement. Two weeks after the election I had to write a paper on changes in voting patterns for this election compared to the 06, 04, and 2000 election.


If Barack was not black, he would of never been the Democratic candidate.
most people who vote in the democratic primary are women.


Which hurt him in the intolerant areas of the country, most of which went Red anyway.

A big chunk being a small number of right wing nut jobs.

14% of the country
LOL this isn't even intelligent. stupid, but true. every time I turned on the channel all I heard was Ayers, Ayers, Ayers, Ayers.

Which no one seemed to care about, no matter how hard McCain tried. William Ayers was nothing compared to McCain's association with Bush.

I don't remember the exact number but a VERY large chunk of the country felt that Obama had shown poor judgement by associating with Ayers.

It's not that they didn't care. It's that Obama was simply better for the country despite this. It still worked against him, just not against him enough.

Which was a controversy well into the primaries after he had all but clinched the nomination, making it almost entirely irrelevant when November came around.

Not true. It was all over the news way before that time. Hillary barely lost if you remember correctly. She was always one step behind him. And this has nothing to do with Dean's 50 state strategy anyways, as that was in place for whoever the nominee happened to be. Your changing the subject from the 50 state strategy to the primaries. Two different topics.

And no one cared. Okay I'll admit that. but the only reason nobody cared is because it didn't surface untill the day before the election.


The majority of American's don't know this as the Iraq War still remains greatly unpopular.
Most Americans did know this. They can know that, while still being opposed to it.


You once again prove you know nothing about politics.

Oh so you can't refute what I said about the major advantages, so you resort to insults? I know nothing? Yeah me and you might disagree on some things, but to imply I know nothing, when I clearly know a hell of a lot more than most Americans is simply inmature.

Many of the things you stated in this post were false. Why don't you simply give Howard Dean credit for his accomplishments? I would never vote for McCain but I don't stubbornly deny him credit when it's deserved, out of some desire to never admit when I'm wrong.

Regardless of how strong or weak these advantages are. You said EVERY advantage went to Obama, and I clearly proved that McCain did have some advantages. Instead of admitting you were wrong about the "every advantage" comment you now try to argue about how much of an advantage they really were.

[StorminNorman]

That's not because he's black. He's a democrat. Obama got 96% of the black vote. In 06 democrats got 88% of the black vote. Overall black voter turn out increased by only 2% since the 06 election. And remember that blacks only make up 13% of the population. Deomcrats have been winning the black vote ever since the civil rights movement. Two weeks after the election I had to write a paper on changes in voting patterns for this election compared to the 06, 04, and 2000 election.

I was referring more to the Democratic Primaries as far as how dominating the black vote helped his candidacy.

most people who vote in the democratic primary are women.

So? Thats irrelevant. His being black, his being a historical candidate, his being a new face that LOOKS different separated him from the likes of John Edwards. Again, his entire campaign was based on Change - his being black was apart of that message. If a white guy had said the same words Barrack did, it wouldn't of had the same impact.

14% of the country

And I bet of that 14%, 99% of them voted for Bush over Kerry.

stupid, but true. every time I turned on the channel all I heard was Ayers, Ayers, Ayers, Ayers.

Because Ayers was the biggest campaign issue during the last few weeks of the campaign because the McCain campaign made it so.

I don't remember the exact number but a VERY large chunk of the country felt that Obama had shown poor judgement by associating with Ayers.

So?

But fine, I will amened my initial statement - almost every single conceivable advantage in this election was in Barack's advantage. Even the overall impact of associations - McCain's association with Bush was far more damning to independent voters than Barack's decades old association with Ayers.

Not true. It was all over the news way before that time. Hillary barely lost if you remember correctly. She was always one step behind him. And this has nothing to do with Dean's 50 state strategy anyways, as that was in place for whoever the nominee happened to be.

The Reverend Wright controversy happened well after Super Tuesday which was the boot that broke Hillary's back. She wasn't officially DOA, but she needed the next best thing to a miracle to have a chance to win. She needed double digit victories over Obama in almost all primaries, plus help from Superdelegates that were swinging hard for Obama.

I do agree, however, that it had nothing to do with Dean's 50 State Strategy - but I had to respond since you brought it up.

Okay I'll admit that. but the only reason nobody cared is because it didn't surface untill the day before the election.

It doesn't matter why nobody cared.

Most Americans did know this. They can know that, while still being opposed to it.

The news doesn't cover success in Iraq nearly as well as it covers set backs. Thats well known.

Oh so you can't refute what I said about the major advantages, so you resort to insults? I know nothing? Yeah me and you might disagree on some things, but to imply I know nothing, when I clearly know a hell of a lot more than most Americans is simply inmature.

No, I refuted what you said about the major advantages and then when faced with something that simply shows a lack of comprehension about the workings of election politics - I have to resort to...well...stating it. Now yes, you know more than a common America - but thats not stating anything.

To think that McCain suspending his campaign had any impact at all on the end result is hilarious - he never really suspended his campaign, it was all a dog and pony show. It failed yes, but it also didn't cost him anything in the slightest.

The big advantages Obama had were the economy, Bush, McCain's campaign becoming increasingly offensive and aggressive, Bush, the economy, a huge edge in money, a huge advantage in technology utilization and ACORN-type get out the vote campaigns, and, of course, Bush and the economy.

[Spider-Bite]

[quote=StorminNorman Returns;16173917]I was referring more to the Democratic Primaries as far as how dominating the black vote helped his candidacy.



nothing to do with the 50 state strategy


So? Thats irrelevant. His being black, his being a historical candidate, his being a new face that LOOKS different separated him from the likes of John Edwards. Again, his entire campaign was based on Change - his being black was apart of that message. If a white guy had said the same words Barrack did, it wouldn't of had the same impact.



nothing to do with the 50 state strategy

And I bet of that 14%, 99% of them voted for Bush over Kerry.
probably but it all comes down to turn out and energizing the base. If you convince people that the opposing ticket has a terrorist on top, then it doesn't get much more energizing than that.



Because Ayers was the biggest campaign issue during the last few weeks of the campaign because the McCain campaign made it so.


still an advantage.

So?
you said nobody cared. I proved that was false.

But fine, I will amened my initial statement - almost every single conceivable advantage in this election was in Barack's advantage. Even the overall impact of associations - McCain's association with Bush was far more damning to independent voters than Barack's decades old association with Ayers.

That is all I ask.



The Reverend Wright controversy happened well after Super Tuesday which was the boot that broke Hillary's back. She wasn't officially DOA, but she needed the next best thing to a miracle to have a chance to win. She needed double digit victories over Obama in almost all primaries, plus help from Superdelegates that were swinging hard for Obama.

correction it was the following 10 states after super tuesday that broke put Hillary behind. If you remember, Hillary won California. and the superdelegates didn't swing hard for Obama untill June. In fact they were afraid to turn off Hillary supporters who's votes they needed for themselves. Remember all that talk about the innerworkings?

I do agree, however, that it had nothing to do with Dean's 50 State Strategy - but I had to respond since you brought it up.
Actually you brought up the statement that Obama had every advantage so I pointed out McCain's advantages. Hillary did not need a miracle at that time. She wasn't that far behind. She was just unable to catch up. Not counting Florida and Michigain Hillary barely lost the popular vote. If you count those states she won the popular vote. She almost won.




It doesn't matter why nobody cared.

true. I already conceded on that.


The news doesn't cover success in Iraq nearly as well as it covers set backs. Thats well known.
true, but Americans were no longer hearing about explosions. They were hearing about the "success of the surge" which was misleading since the Iraqi government didn't make the political reconciliations the surge was supposed to produce. And in an election year the stuff gets covered. Iraq was a major issue, although smaller than in 06. It was still on people's minds, and Americans were being told that the surge was a success.



No, I refuted what you said about the major advantages correction, you refuted what I said about his aunt being an illegal alien. You didn't refute anything else. You merely danced around it.


and then when faced with something that simply shows a lack of comprehension about the workings of election politics -
you weren't faced with that.

I have to resort to...well...stating it. Now yes, you know more than a common America - but thats not stating anything.

dude man, just admit it. I mopped you. People made stupid comments about Howard Dean, who was very involved in the workings of this election behind the scenes. You appear unable to comprehend what he contributed, which would suggest that you don't understand the workings of politics. Especially your comment about him being black and winning the black vote. It appears as if you had no idea that democrats have been winning 90% of the black vote ever since the civil rights movement.

it appears you have no idea how important groundwork and infastructure is in an election.

To think that McCain suspending his campaign had any impact at all on the end result is hilarious -my politics professor would disagree. Does she not know anything about politics either, even though she works in DC?

he never really suspended his campaign, it was all a dog and pony show. It failed yes, but it also didn't cost him anything in the slightest.which was obvious to the country which is why it had an impact. what the hell man? can you not see a car when it's heading straight for you?


The big advantages Obama had were the economy, Bush, McCain's campaign becoming increasingly offensive and aggressive, Bush, the economy,yes. this is basically the only truthful thing you have said in this entire discussion. I made a statement about Howard Dean's contribution, you disagreed and went all over the place with this stuff.



a huge edge in money, a huge advantage in technology utilization and ACORN-type get out the vote campaigns,

Yeah there is a name for that. It's called the 50 state strategy. That's what I've been saying the whole time. You just listed Howard dEan's 50 state strategy as one of the advantages Obama had. Yeah I've been saying that the whole time. Finally you admitted it, even if on accident. I never denied that Obama had a lot of advnatages. I merely gave Howard Dean credit for Obama having such a large electoral victory. His electoral victory was way bigger than his popular vote margin, and that's because of Howard Dean's 50 state strategy.

It's true man. Just admit it. Your reasons for Obama are winning only account for his winning the popular vote. It does not account for how his electoral landslide. All this talk about the innerworkings of politics? I made a statement and you stated the opposite and since you knew you were wrong, you instead tried to change the subject with the hopes of making me look like an idiot, hoping everybody would overlook the fact that you were wrong in your initial statement. It's like your trying to create mini debates within the debate with the hopes of finding at least something that can let you say "see I ws right." If you knew so much about politics, you never would have tried to disregard the party's chairman.

When Obama won he even said Dean did a fantastic job, and I'm sure we will hear it again on January 20th. But I guess Obama doesn't know anything about politics either. :whatever:

[The Senator]

I hear Chris Matthews may run for the Senate...

[Holiday]

I hear Chris Matthews may run for the Senate...

:lmao:

Yeah, I think there's even a thread about it somewhere...

[Matt]

I still see no good reason to vote Specter out of office simply to get someone with a D next to their name in office.

[Matt]

Gentlemen, please.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=316843

[StorminNorman]

I didn't even know that thread existed :eek:

Though really how much is there to discuss on the matter at hand after your initial gut reaction to Senator Mathews? Until there is any sort of announcement, or any news outside of mere speculation, this thread has no real great sense of purpose.

[Superman]

LOL, this is hilarious considering I, as I have stated several times, did not vote for McCain. :wow: In fact I was MORE likely to vote for Obama than McCain.

First of all, If you didn't vote for McCain who did you vote for? Being "Likely" to do something isn't the same as actually doing it.


2nd, Your sig, Please tell me you're joking.

[StorminNorman]

First of all, If you didn't vote for McCain who did you vote for? Being "Likely" to do something isn't the same as actually doing it.

I did something I thought I would never do, I voted Write In. The last month of McCain's campaign disgusted me thoroughly and he lost my vote completely. Obama made great strives in getting my vote, but I still was deeply unsure about the type of people he would surround himself with (its not exactly like he has a great track record of it). If Obama had announced Colin Powell as Sec of Def I would of voted for him, if Obama said he would of been opened to the idea of keeping Gates, I would of voted for him.

2nd, Your sig, Please tell me you're joking.

Theres no joke there.