Posts Tagged ‘Olbermann’

Fox News Most Demonized By Obama, Most Trusted By Americans

January 31, 2010

Fox News is now far and away the most trusted name in news, even according to left-leaning Public Policy Polling.

I didn’t need a poll to know that.

Last week I wrote an article entitled, “In Hindsight Of Massachusetts, Who Presented The Truth: Obama, Or Fox News?”  And my contention was that Fox News was basically the only news organization that was broadcasting the truth all along, while the “Obama media” reported propaganda.

But now common sense is confirmed by polling:

Poll: Fox most trusted name in news
By ANDY BARR | 1/27/10 7:38 AM EST

Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday.

A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.

There was a strong partisan split among those who said they trusted Fox — with 74 percent of Republicans saying they trusted the network, while only 30 percent of Democrats said they did.

CNN was the second-most-trusted network, getting the trust of 39 percent of those polled. Forty-one percent said they didn’t trust CNN.

Each of the three major networks was trusted by less than 40 percent of those surveyed, with NBC ranking highest at 35 percent. Forty-four percent said they did not trust NBC, which was combined with its sister cable station MSNBC.

Thirty-two percent of respondents said they trusted CBS, while 31 percent trusted ABC. Both CBS and ABC were not trusted by 46 percent of those polled.

“A generation ago you would have expected Americans to place their trust in the most neutral and unbiased conveyors of news,” said PPP President Dean Debnam in his analysis of the poll. “But the media landscape has really changed, and now they’re turning more toward the outlets that tell them what they want to hear.”

The telephone poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.

Democrats – who completely rely on mainstream media propaganda to win elections – are panic-stricken.  Here’s what the Democratic Senatorial Committee said in a new pitch:

Republicans think Massachusetts was an endorsement of their stall tactics and personal attacks. A new poll names Fox News Channel as the most trusted news outlet. Sarah Palin has 1.2 million fans on Facebook and is the $100,000 headliner at the national tea party convention. If we don’t fight back, and stand up for America, then their version of America will get the upper hand.

We cannot let that happen. And with your help, we will not.

Republicans “don’t think” here; they simply recognize the obvious.  An unknown Republican running against the Obama agenda pulling out a win against a well known Democrat running for “Ted Kennedy’s seat” is a no-brainer confirmation of Republican opposition to Obama’s many high-spending boondoggles.

Sarah Palin has such a huge following on Facebook because in a few paragraphs she can destroy an eternity’s worth of Obama mistatement of the union lies.  Palin is routinely slandered as being dumber than a box of rocks, but she saw the failures of Obama a year-and-a-half before the brilliant liberals were able to comprehend the same things about him.

And let’s talk about the Tea Party protesters.

A recent Rasmussen survey ran under the following title: “WSJ/NBC News Poll: Tea Party Tops Democrats and Republicans.”  Which means they are clearly a major force.  But there’s more to say:

The loosely organized group made of up mostly conservative activists and independent voters that’s come to be known as the Tea Party movement currently boasts higher favorability ratings than either the Democratic or Republican Parties, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll coming out later today.

More than four in 10, 41%, of respondents said they had a very or somewhat favorable view of the Tea Party movement, while 24% said they had a somewhat or very negative view of the group. The Tea Party movement gained notoriety over the summer following a series of protests in Washington, D.C. and other cities over government spending and other U.S. economic policies.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, which controls both the White House and Congress, has a 35% positive rating compared with a 45% negative rating.

Who nailed that story right from the beginning?  Who charted the progress of the what may very well be the most important political story in decades?  Fox News.  Who completely dismissed it?  Everybody else.

It was the same kind of mainstream media ostrich that buried its head in the sand with the ACORN scandal, in which a couple of kids posing as a pimp and prostitute got ACORN office after office to demonstrate that they were willing to help a couple buy a house and cheat on their taxes  set up a prostitution ring of underage illegal immigrant girls.  ABC network news anchor Charles Gibson hadn’t even heard about the story, it was so low on their radar:

Gibson: HAHAHAHAHA. HEHEHE. I didn’t even know about it. Um. So, you’ve got me at a loss. I don’t know. Uh. Uh. But my goodness, if it’s got everything including sleaziness in it, we should talk about it this morning.

Roma: This is the American way!

Gibson: Or maybe this is just one you leave to the cables.

And note that in that story I AGAIN lambast the media for refusing to honestly cover the Tea Party events.  I showed the picture of the massive crowds at the event (and you KNOW they would have covered a NOW rally with eight feminists marching in a tight little circle):

The UK Daily Mail reported that one million people showed up for that Tea Party event in Washington D.C. What was the mainline media response?  To either not report the event at all, or to try to dismiss the massive crowds as a few nuts.

Time Magazine didn’t even bother to mention the massive Tea Party movement in it’s ‘Year in Review’ edition.  Like it never happened at all.  Nothing to see here, folks.

Obama trivialized, ridiculed, and attacked both the Tea Party movement and Fox News in one swoop:

So, when you see – those of you who are watching certain news channels that on which I’m not very popular and you see folks waving tea bags around, let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we are going to stabilize Social Security”

He finally met with Republicans after Scott Brown’s victory kicked him hard right in the gonads.  After a full year of completely shutting them out.  In the one meeting he had with them he arrogantly smirked, “I won,” when Republicans tried to share their clearly-in-hindsight legitimate concerns.  And every single one of his “town halls” have been carefully scripted events in which Tea Party people are most definitely not invited.

Obama’s senior media representativesone a self-admitted Maoist – proceeded to repeatedly attack the credibility of what is now recognized to be the most trusted name in news.

I wrote about how the mainstream media ridiculed the Tea Party movement.  Anderson Cooper used the sexually disgusting phrase “tea bagging” to refer to them.  And Keith Olbermann just went to straight rabid frothing hatred of them.  His interview with Janeane Garofalo on the Tea Party was so vile that I quit watching ’24′ as long as she was one it.

Keith Olbermann’s ratings have plunged 44% since last January as people get sick of his rabid lies.  Meanwhile Fox News not only runs circles around Olbermann in the ratings, but runs circles around the circles that they run around him and all the media leeches like him.

Obama is a liar and a demagogue, and he is the leader of a party of demagogues, supported by media propaganda.

Which is why the news organization that he demonized becoming the most trusted name in news is every bit as much of a slap in the face of the tiny degree of credibility he has remaining as it is a justification of Fox News.

On Keith Olbermann’s Deceitful and Depraved Attack of Dick Cheney

May 25, 2009

I remember exactly what I was doing the morning of September 11, 2001.  I was a grad student at the time, getting ready for my first class with the television running in the background.  Just before the first large passenger plane crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center something caught my attention just in time to see it happen live.  [Note: please see the update at the conclusion for a correction].

And the day froze into shock, numbness, dismay, terror, and a rising anger.

The broadcasters were talking to themselves about whether this was an accident, or an intentional attack.  I didn’t need them to tell me what it was: like many other Americans, I knew exactly what had just happened.

And then the second plane struck the second tower.  And shortly afterward the cameras began to catch specks falling out of the towers that turned out to be Americans throwing themselves out of top story windows to their deaths in order to avoid the even more agonizing death by burning.

President George Bush had been President for just over six months.  But I would have felt EXACTLY the same sense of horror and outrage whether Bill Clinton, or Al Gore, or George Bush was President.

It wasn’t about being a member of a political party, or who was President or what party he was from; it was about being an American whose country had just been attacked.

That’s just no longer the case, though.  I no longer feel that way.

Barack Obama’s constant unrelenting blaming of the Bush administration for virtually every problem under the sun was bad enough; Obama’s description of Bush “torture” and his releasing of CIA memos intended to politically hurt the Bush administration at the expense of informing our enemies exactly how we would and would not interrogate them was bad enough; House Speaker Nancy Peolosi’s demagoguery of the Bush administration over its “torture” and her subsequent lies that she herself had been informed about such “torture” and done nothing was bad enough; but it just never seems to end.

But the following example of Bush Derangement Syndrome finally sent me over the top:

Transcript of Keith Olbermann’s remarks on MSNBC:

The delusional claims he has made this day could be proved by documentation and firsthand testimony to be the literal and absolute truth, and he still, himself, would be wrong because the America he sought to impose upon the world and upon its own citizens, the dark, hateful place of Dick Cheney`s own soul, the place he to this hour defends, and to this day prefers, is a repudiation of all that our ancestors, all that for which our brave troops of two years ago and two minutes ago, have sacrificed and fought.

Olbermann acknowledges that EVEN if Dick Cheney is telling the truth and his own liberal allies are lying, it doesn’t matter.  Because he thinks Cheney and his vision for America are evil.  So truth be damned.  That is the warped mind of the true ideologue.

And he then uses a rhetorical flourish to indicate that our troops have suffered for Cheney’s hateful vision.

What Olbermann, evil liar that he truly is, fails to mention is that our “brave troops” who “have sacrificed and fought” actually think JUST LIKE Cheney and DON’T THINK like Olbermann.

I can cite the political polls of our soldiers to show that they overwhelmingly supported the conservative agenda and opposed the liberal one.  We find that 68% of active duty military personnel supported John McCain, versus only 23% for Barack Obama.  But it’s better to simply let you see another story that features a video as to how our Marines felt about George Bush versus how they felt about Barack Obama.

Another example occurred just this morning on The View, with two veterans who lost legs to roadside bombs answering Barbara Walters’ “was it worth it” question by saying without hesitation that they would both return to the fight if they could.  Barbara Walters was clearly stunned by their answer, and didn’t say another word.  Our veterans are NOT victims of Bush or Cheney or anyone else; and every attempt to portray them as such is a contemptible lie.

If Keith Olbermann had even a shred of personal honesty, integrity, character, or virtue, he would not have dragged American soldiers into his hateful polemic given that they themselves are on the very side that Olbermann so utterly despises.  But Olbermann doesn’t have any honesty, integrity, character, or virtue.

So he warps the men and women who supported George Bush and Dick Cheney so overwhelmingly into victims.

Olbermann says:

Gee, thanks for being motivated by the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans to go so far as to take a serious second look. And thank you, sir, for admitting, obviously inadvertently, that you did not take a serious first look in the seven months and 23 days between your inauguration and 9/11. For that attack, sir, you are culpable, morally, ethically. At best, you are guilty of malfeasance and eternally lasting stupidity. At worst, sir, in the deaths of 9/11, you are negligent.

Again, if Keith Olbermann had so much as a shred of personal or professional honesty, he wouldn’t say something like this.

Let’s review the list: 1) In 1993 Bill Clinton ran from Somalia after a battle with Islamic insurgents that left 18 American servicemen dead; 2) Also in 1993 the US suffered a terrorist attack in the form of the first World Trade Center bombing that killed 6 and wounded more than 1000 Americans; 3) In 1995 the US suffered its first domestic terrorist attack at the Oklahoma Federal Building that left 168 Americans dead; 4) In 1996 19 American servicemen were killed in a Saudi Arabian terrorist bombing of the US military Khobar Towers barracks; 5) In 1998 there was a simultaneous terrorist bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 200 people; 6) In 2000 the USS Cole was attacked by terrorists, leaving 17 American servicemen dead.

There may well have been more, but that is all I can remember.

Most of these attacks were revealed to have clearly been done under the direction of Osama bin Laden by his al Qaeda terrorist organization.  In spite of this fact, President Clinto repeatedly passed up on opportunities to take bin Laden into custody even when Somalia literally offered his head on a platter.

How can Keith Olberman in good conscience so blame Bush and Cheney for 9/11 when the Clinton administration had never taken terrorism seriously themselves?  But Olbermann doesn’t have a good conscience.  He is a truly depraved human being.

Bill Clinton failed to take 9/11 seriously for the same reason George Bush failed to take it seriously in the six months of his administration preceding the 9/11 attack: because we hadn’t been hit hard enough yet.  Clinton should have learned from the attacks America suffered throughout his entire presidency; and Bush should have paid attention to Clinton’s disastrous track record.

Olbermann said:

You saved no one, sir. If the classified documents you seek released really did detail plots other than those manufactured by drowning men in order to get it to stop, or if they truly did know plans beyond the laughable ones you and President Bush have already revealed, hijackers without passports, targeting a building whose name Mr. Bush could not remember, clowns who thought they could destroy airports by dropping matches in fuel pipelines 30 miles away, men who planned to attack a military base dressed as pizza delivery boys, forgetting that every man there was armed, and today, the four would-be synagogue bombers, one of whom turns out to keep bottles of urine in his apartment, and is on schizophrenia medicine.

Olbermann is simply lying here.  CIA director George Tenent – who was appointed to his position by Bill Clinton – said that the enhanced interrogations by themselves were “Worth more than the FBI, CIA and NSA put together.” Career intelligence professional and CIA Director General Michael Hayden said, “fully half of the government’s knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from those [harsh] interrogations.” In fact, President Obama’s very own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” A Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005 notes that “the CIA believes ‘the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.’ . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques.”

So the man popping schizophrenia medicine and washing it down with his own bottled urine is none other than Keith Olbermann and everyone at MSNBC and everyone who watches the network.  It certainly isn’t Dick Cheney.

Olbermann saves his ugliest and most hateful remarks for last:

You saved no one, Mr. Cheney. All you did was help kill Americans. You were negligent before 9/11. Your response to your complicity by omission on 9/11 was panic and shame and insanity, and lying this country into a war that did nothing but kill 4,299 more of us. We will take no further instructions from you, sir. And let me again quote Oliver Cromwell to you, Mr. Cheney. “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of god, go.”

I’ve written about other things that Keith Olbermann and his “guests” have said.  Only very recently Janeane Garofalo said:

This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And you know, you can tell these type of right wingers anything and they’ll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become — it’s like showing Frankenstein’s monster fire. They become confused, and angry and highly volatile. That guy, causing them feelings they don’t know, because their limbic brain, we’ve discussed this before, the limbic brain inside a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist, the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it’s pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring. Is Bernie Goldberg listening?

And there was Keith Olbermann and Michael Musto engaging in about as hateful of an attack as one can possibly imagine against Miss California Carrie Prejean for the simple reason that they despise her right to express her own views about an issue that most Californians and most Americans agree with her over.

Keith Olbermann is a vain, petty, vindictive, vicious, hateful, and truly ugly human being.  And MSNBC would do far better broadcasting in place of pro-terrorist al Jazeera than it is doing here.  Both networks run basically the same message.

But Keith Olbermann’s rant against Dick Cheney and every conservative who agrees with him rose to such a level of hatred, such a level of vicious, bitter, ugly, deceitful, and frankly evil rhetoric, that it transcends anything I have ever heard.

Right now, liberals like Keith Olbermann are teeing off on conservatives for waterboarding when we now learn that liberals like Nancy Pelosi and many other Democrats were fully briefed on “enhanced interrogation techniques that had been employed,” and neither said or did anything to prevent such techniques.  And even the very liberal new CIA Director under Obam0, Leon Panetta, essentially says Pelosi is lying.  How are their attacks now anything but partisan demagoguery?

And right now, liberals including Barack Obama himself are deceitfully claiming the moral high ground even as the new liberal administration takes many of the same positions that it hypocritically and demagogically found so hateful on the campaign trail.  As many policies as Obama has undone that will make this country less safe, there have been almost as many that he once demonized, only to follow himself once in office.

For instance, President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate.  Given that President Bush used the technique against only three individuals shortly after the worst disaster in US history, how is Obama any different?  In fact he’s worse, because Bush and Cheney never demagogued the issue as Obama has repeatedly done.

Obama demonized Bush over the Bush policy on rendition.  But now this demagogue is quietly continuing to carry out the same rendition policy – abducting terrorist suspects and sending them to countries that will use harsh interrogation methods – even as he congratulates himself in front of a fawning media for his being better than Bush.  But Obama isn’t better than Bush and Cheney; he’s worse.  Because he’s a hypocrite and a demagogue.

In the words of the New York Times, military commissions was “a concept he criticized bitterly as a presidential candidate.”  But now the hypocrite and demagogue is going to quietly use them himself.

And Obama has indicated that he likewise reserves the right to continue to hold some prisoners without trial indefinitely – a position he demonized during the campaign.  How can such a man who so hypocritically employed such demagoguery only to come to the same position as the man he demagogued claim any semblance of moral high ground?  Obama is lower than Bush in his character, not higher.  Bush and Cheney didn’t self-righteously demagogue; only Obama did.

Obama decided against the release of the remainder of the infamous Abu Ghraib photos.  But only because he had to bow to the reality of the massive resitance against his decision to release them and the consequences such a stupid and depraved act would have had both for our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and for Democrats at home.  In electing not to release them, Obama took the SAME position that Bush/Cheney had taken.  Obama is not better than Bush or Cheney; he’s worse.  They didn’t waiver and pander before going back on their decision out of the selfish interests of political survival.  They were consistent in their determination to do the right thing.

Obama has idiotically promised he would close Gitmo, but even his own party now realizes how foolish that would be and has twice denied him funding to do so until he come up with a plan that makes some kind of sense.  Obama wrapped himself up in puffed-up, posturing self-righteousness, but the reality is that Bush was forced to confront the same unsolvable dilemmas.  The only difference was that Bush was wiser than Barack Obama in recognizing the problems that made a closure of Gitmo nearly impossible; and that Bush – unlike Obama – was never a pandering demagogue.

Again, Obama isn’t one iota better than Bush or Cheney.  He’s worse.

Not that any of these FACTS matter to liberals.  Because far too many of them are exactly like Keith Olbermann: even if the facts support conservatives, it doesn’t matter.  Such liberals are completely false, vile people who routinely treat the truth with as much contempt as Olbermann does.

I said earlier that I no longer feel the same way about my country that I did following 9/11.  I wish it were not true, but the constant unrelenting barrage of lies, hypocristy, demonization, and demagoguery from the left – particularly on national security issues – have left me with an increasingly bitter taste in my mouth.  And following so many years of such hateful tactics, I fear that if we are attacked again, that I will react politically, rather than patriotically.  I wish it weren’t true, but there it is.

Update: I have since realized that the first attack was not covered live, and film footage of the first airplane was not made available until later.  What I would have seen was video footage of smoke billowing out of the World Trade Center shortly following the first attack, finally followed by live footage of the 2nd plane strike.  I attempted to describe from memory what I had seen 8 years ago, and it turns out that my memory was not perfect.

Liberal NBC News Networks Are “the Lohans”

September 6, 2008

Bill O’Reilly has long-said that NBC News is the most liberal and corrupt news organization in the country, and that its spin-off MSNBC is a disgrace.

Recent evidence proved that he knew what he was talking about.

An exchange between “The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart and NBC anchor Brian Williams – and the underlying Richter-scale level on-air meltdowns the network has suffered – makes for hilarious yet revealing insights into the liberal media:

Brian Williams appeared on Tuesday night’s “The Daily Show” from Minnesota, where Jon Stewart asked him about the recent infighting taking place on MSNBC.

“Let me ask you this,” Stewart said. “You’re NBC, you’re the top dog, you’re the anchor, and then they send you over to MSNBC, and literally they’re beating each other up. Matthews is yelling at Olberamnn, Scarborough is yelling at David Shuster, you have to apparently ask some of the women there if they would check a box if they like you…is there no control? Is it Lord of the Flies?”

When Williams tried the, “I think every family has a dynamic all its own” defense, Stewart shot back: “But does MSNBC have to be the Lohans?”

A further comment from the Huffington Post claims:

Word on the blogs has it that the awkward edit toward the end of the segment occurred to eliminate this exchange:

Brian Williams: You don’t understand the pressure.
Jon Stewart: You’ve got to lie. I’ve just got to tell the truth.

So we’ve got the crazy psycho liberal thing, and we’ve got the biased lying ideologue thing going on in the same Jon Stewart riff.

Not a bad days’ work, Jon.

Hillary’s Pennsylvania Win Has Media Snivelling

April 23, 2008

Last night’s Democratic primary in Pennsylvania is worth commenting on. A 10-point margin of victory against a candidate who spent three times more in the state is obviously significant.

Why can’t Barack Obama – the candidate of sweeping hope and change – close Hillary Clinton out? It’s a question being taken up by more and more pundits. Obama threw the kitchen sink at Clinton – spending-wise – and ended up with a double-digit loss in a major state. The 200,000 vote margin in Pennsylvania also gives Hillary Clinton a legitimate claim to boast that she has obtained the nationwide popular vote.

Back in 2000, the Democrats mantra was “Every vote should count!” But here we are completely excluding the votes in Florida and Michigan? It’s just part of the self-serving pretzel-logic of the Democratic Party.

Obama has now lost 7 of the 10 biggest states in the country, including all 4 of the major battleground states that could go either Red or Blue in November.

As it stands, there is no no way either candidate can win enough delegates to take the nomination outright. Whoever wins will win because the super delegates hand the election to one or the other. In this race, neither candidate genuinely has the right to claim that the super delegates “owe” their vote to one or the other, precisely because the super delegates aren’t beholden to any specific “rule” that tells them how to vote one way or the other.

The conventional wisdom holds that the super delegates will crown the candidate that has the best chance of winning in November. But who is that? Obama has won twice as many states. But many of those states were awarded by caucuses – a byzantine process very nearly as un-democratic as the super delegate rule itself. Hillary Clinton has won more large states. She won Florida, won California, won Texas, won Ohio, won Pennsylvania. And she has certainly had the recent momentum in the last few major states – but how much of that recent momentum has been her own, and how much was handed to her by Obama’s stumbles? Finally, both candidates are nailing down their respective bases, but both would need to hold on to the other’s base in November in order to have any chance of winning the general election.

And it appears to me, at least, that if either candidate is “snubbed” by the super delegates, well, to coin a movie title, “There Will Be Blood.”

My own sense is that the super delegates will award the nomination to Barack Obama simply because elite liberals, the ideological “Moveon.org”-types, and blacks would raise more of a tantrum than the working-class whites, the seniors, and the women in Hillary’s camp.

In other words, the barometer will ultimately be “PC,” rather than the calculus of “electibility,” that determines the nominee. If I am correct in my assesment, this bodes ill for Democrats: because PC guarantees that the side that gets snubbed will have hard feelings, just as it always has against everyone else on whom it’s been played. There will be lifelong Democrats who will vote for McCain, or simply not vote at all, mark my words.

At times, MSNBC’s Hardball coverage of the election revealed some genuine bitterness over Clinton’s victory.

Keith Olbermann quoted Donna Brazile as saying, There is a group around Senator Clinton that really wants to take the fight to the convention. They don’t care about the party. It scares me, and that’s what scares a lot of superdelegates.

Chris Matthews – on the very same night that Hillary Clinton wins a 10 point victory in a major state – analogizes the Hillary Clinton campaign to the Titanic, and points out that “The iceberg’s name is Barack Obama.”

Tom Brokaw all but wrote Hillary’s campaign obituary, saying she’d go as far as she could before she finally hit the wall.

There was one exchange that I found especially revealing in its “journalistic implications”:

Christ Matthews: It’s not just the Clinton forces continue to change the score sheet and the scoreboard itself, they reserve the right to do it again and again and again.

Tim Russert: Yes. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Terry McAuliffe have one thing they want: Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee. And they’ll use any path that’s available to get there….That’s what it is all about — those are the rules according to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Terry McAuliffe.

Chris Matthews: Mulligan after mulligan after mulligan.

Keith Olbermann: And yes, it really is not just a moving goalpost but the proverbial movable feast of goalposts. You put it anywhere you want. And remember – and the other thing about is, as much as we might look at it with astonishment or you know, amazement maybe that especially in that — that core group of women supporters, that group we mentioned earlier, that is so adherent to Hillary Clinton, this particular action of moving the goalpost, the actual act of redefining the game as it goes along, is perceived as one of her greatest strengths.

Republicans, of course, could have told everyone 16 years ago that the Clintons didn’t care about anybody but the Clintons; that they would deceive, distort, mischaracterize, and use deceptive media tactics that could have come right from the mafia in order to win. But the liberals who loved Clintonian tactics when they were successfully employed against Republicans are suddenly finding that they have no stomach whatever for them when they are employed against someone they like.

Keith Olbermann underscored the media’s fidgeting over the prospect of Democrats mud-wrestling themselves right out of viability, saying, “Yes, I really like the image of superdelegates moving quickly, because, so far, they have been glacier-like, in any respect, in any direction.” Most any other time, of course, journalists love the idea of dirty laundry being constantly hung out for them to sniff. Most of the time, they wouldn’t want anybody to step in and end this endless twisting in the wind. But this fight is clearly different for them.

One writer pointed out on 24 March 2008, “And prominent pundits are saying so. Last Friday, just about an hour after the Richardson endorsement event, two top writers for the Politico, an influential website, posted a news article-cum-editorial arguing, accurately, that Clinton has almost no numerical case to make. Another uber-pundit and conventional-wisdom shaper, this one at Time, posted 14 reasons why Clinton should consider withdrawing. And so it was that the week that began with Obama on the ropes ended with Clinton being urged out of the ring.”

Jonathan Alter of Newsweek offered the objective title, “Hillary Should Get Out Now.”

I particularly like the New York Times editorial for 23 April 2008, “The Low Road to Victory.” Laura Ingraham – rightly – points out that these New York Times people couldn’t get enough dirty laundry out of the Catholic Church, that the continued to demand one mea culpa after another. And they certainly didn’t mind throwing a clearly dirty mud ball at John McCain by all but accusing him of a sexual affair in addition to other illegitimate behavior with a female lobbyist. But now they don’t have the stomach for any more negative news to damage Democratic candidates. They are clearly sorry they endorsed Clinton at this point. They didn’t know who the liberal darling would turn out to be.

The editorial begins, “The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.”

Another inconclusive result?” A 10 point victory? These people have clearly become unhinged over the Democratic campaign. And they couldn’t show their bias much more nakedly.

And it ends: “It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.”

In other words, PLEASE, OH PLEASE PLEASE, WON’T SOMEBODY STOP THIS UNDERMINING OF OUR BELOVED DEMOCRATS? WE OBJECTIVE JOURNALISTS JUST CAN’T STAND IT ANYMORE!”

But I close with the extremely relevant question of MSNBC anchor, Joe Scarborough, who said on last night’s Hardball: “Hey, Harold [Ford], let’s pretend we’re in the Democratic cloakroom. We are two uncommitted superdelegates and we just found out Barack Obama lost Pennsylvania. We are talking and I say to you hey, man, I’m concerned about this guy. He’s been in Pennsylvania for seven weeks. He has had $9 million, he’s crushed Hillary Clinton as far as the ad wars go. But he can’t close the deal. He can win now, and we are in a Democratic cloakroom, I would then say those Republican bastards are going to kill him in the fall. What do we do?

Indeed.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers