Clinton Campaign Calls Out NBC

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:26:04 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

And they are right to. Via TPM:

This is really something. The Hillary campaign has just gone to war with MSNBC, dispatching a top Hillary adviser to launch a lacerating attack on the network on a conference call with reporters moments ago.

On the call, top Hillary adviser Howard Wolfson suggested that there's a "pattern" of reprehensible comments by MSNBC personalities, and said outright that the Hillary campaign could no longer "envision a scenario where we would debate on that network given the comments that were made and have been made."

I think any honest observer of NBC's coverage has to admit that NBC has been incredibly anti-Hillary. Greg Sargent previously wrote:

In the days before the [Super Tuesday] voting . . . an extraordinary amount of good press rained down on Barack Obama. And no network has done more to push absurdly over-the-top story-lines favorable to Obama than MSNBC has.

The network took the lead in pumping the Ted Kennedy endorsement into an event of truly cosmic significance. Chris Matthews repeatedly hailed Obama as a kind of cross between Jesus, JFK, and Muhammad Ali. One commentator after another predicted that Bill Clinton's antics would mortally wound Hillary's candidacy. In a perfect set-up to the pratfall that followed, The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson went on MSNBC and flatly predicted that last night's results would be a "repudiation of Bill Clinton." Like, not.

. . . Tom Brokaw went on MSNBC and chastised his colleagues for getting so far ahead of themselves. “Once again,” Brokaw intoned, “in all of our conventional and collective wisdom, we were wrong.” Taylor Marsh rightly noted that Brokaw was "babysitting" his MSNBC colleagues.

. . . The results repudiated the style of punditry that MSNBC traffics in, perhaps more so than any other network this cycle -- the constant speculation, the borderline-pathological obsession with Bill Clinton, the embarrassing Obama worship, the refusal to let the voters have their say.

What will make MSNBC -- and like-minded colleagues -- stop with this stuff? At this point, multiple journalistic worthies have pleaded for sanity. Brokaw did this just last night. . . . Maybe the MSNBC folks and others like them can be induced to stop this sort of stuff for Obama's sake?

As I say, any honest observer should see this. The Clinton campaign is completely right here. Keith Olbermann and Company have become a variant of the Fox Noise he so often likes to ridicule.

< Obama And Clinton Will Need Each Other In The GE | MSNBC Suspends David Shuster Over Chelsea Clinton Comment >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Clinton Campaign Calls Out NBC | 98 comments (98 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I think the fair solution is to suspend (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by MarkL on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:30:00 PM EST

Shuster from any political coverage until after the conventions.

Until the nomination is decided (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:35:50 PM EST

But by that standard you have to suspend the entire network.


I'm all for it. the whole smirking bunch of them (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:49:38 PM EST

: Ralph (none / 0) (#52)
by Judith on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:52:03 PM EST

isnt it funny how much space is devoted to these losers? Best thing is for the Clinton campaign to ignore them. Their coverage simply cant get worse.

Not really (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by doordiedem0crat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:37:01 PM EST

He should formally apologize, then move on.


Move on to covering (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:40:39 PM EST

McCain. He is hopeless compromised for covering the Dem race now.


: Correct. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by doordiedem0crat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:43:19 PM EST

He has to do this to maintain credibility.

: I agree (none / 0) (#29)
by Jgarza on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:44:35 PM EST

no other option but to fire him.

Schuster has been suspended (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by scribe on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:50:03 PM EST

per this linked in at the prior thread:

NBC NEWS STATEMENT REGARDING CHELSEA CLINTON COMMENT:
On Thursday's "Tucker" on MSNBC, David Shuster, who was serving as guest-host of the program, made a comment about Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton campaign that was irresponsible and inappropriate. Shuster, who apologized this morning on MSNBC and will again this evening, has been suspended from appearing on all NBC News broadcasts, other than to make his apology. He has also extended an apology to the Clinton family. NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks


Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by magster on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:32:41 PM EST

Shuster had been somewhat progressive or independent previously, with many wanting him to replace Tucker. Now that shouldn't happen.

absolutely brilliant chess move (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:38:08 PM EST

on the part of Clinton's campaign...


yes getting into a media fight with (none / 0) (#26)
by Jgarza on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:43:02 PM EST

MSNBC rather concentrating on her campaign is a smart move, I personally hope she gets Schuster fired.


goofy (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Judith on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:45:16 PM EST

comment.


Everybody hates the media (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:50:52 PM EST

It can be well-played. I'm in a major city that had a mayor that set a record for longevity, 28 years -- the last 20 of those won by refusing to even talk to the leading paper in the city and state. The public loved it.


Kudos To The Mayor - Gotta Love It n/t (none / 0) (#77)
by MO Blue on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:04:50 PM EST

Isn't that dangerous? (none / 0) (#103)
by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:07:30 PM EST

Who held the mayor's feet to the fire? Politically active citizens?


: There actually used to be a good local tv (none / 0) (#106)
by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:37:47 AM EST

station that watched him. It was an NBC franchise. Go figure, but it turned into a right-wing, happy-talk joke. And it now has lost its first-place ratings in the local market -- along with its once-great reputation.:-)
And there was a competing paper -- not as large in circulation but on the mayor's case sometimes. Go figure again, but it now has been merged into the larger paper. And it also has gone conservative (and it also is losing circulation).
And the larger paper didn't get off the mayor's case, entirely -- because those were the days of good investigative reporters, and it turned up enough stuff to rein in the mayor a bit. You really don't get the best stories at a mayor's press conference or from news releases, anyway. (Paramount example: White House press corps.)
Let that be a lesson -- make the media work for it, and we might just get better work from them.

locker room (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by eric on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:42:07 PM EST

These guys get going and even Olbermann gets sucked in - it reminds me a bit of guys in a locker room.

Good point (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by scribe on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:42:27 PM EST

this:

The Clinton campaign is completely right here. Keith Olbermann and Company have become a variant of the Fox Noise he so often likes to ridicule.

You become what you despise, Keith. He's lost a lot of cred with me, over his amping up. It's almost like he got hooked on the well-deserved, positive feedback he got from taking on Bush, Rummy, Gonzo, and the rest of the torturing criminals who inhabit this administration. He would do far better (in my eyes, anyway) were he to stick to solid just the facts ma'am reporatage of the continuing scandal which is the administration, instead of laying 22 minutes off the top of every show into the latest discussion of ... whatever.

I, for one, am quite tired of the Democratic race devolving into a contest between opposing sides of advertising hacks who cut their teeth on making people want to make passionate distinctions between subspecies of cheeseburgers, and want to sell presidential candidates the same way.

Frankly, the Democrats, and the nation, would be far better off if HRC and 'Bam were to go ahead and debate the crap out of each other, Lincoln-Douglas style, all the way to the convention, each one knowing that they are both going to be on the ticket because they have to be, and both taking the opportunity of (and free TV time afforded by) such debates to excoriate, slice, dice and lay into the Republican policies and administration they intend to replace. They can use the division of the party as it exists to further the interests of the party and the nation as a whole and build a bigger Democratic wave for this election. IF they think creatively.

Of course, Keith won't listen to any of this. He's got a new contract feeding him in excess of a million a year, a new set within walking distance of his Manhattan pad (not out in the swamps of Secaucus anymore for him) and a girlfriend half his age waiting for him when he gets off work. Any one of those things makes him clearly a superior human being and therefore not capable of benefitting from what I have to say. The combination ... well....

Great idea (none / 0) (#72)
by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:01:21 PM EST

too bad the candidates wouldn't run with it.


Well, if more of us (none / 0) (#76)
by scribe on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:04:34 PM EST

were to start shouting this idea out - like may have helped with getting Shuster suspended by NBC - they might hear the idea above the din of the passionate distinguishing between subspecies of cheeseburgers, and (like you did) recognize what a good idea it is.


: I sure hope so. (none / 0) (#84)
by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:13:47 PM EST

It's too good an idea to just drop.
On Olbermann, I prefer Dan Patrick for my sports news anyway.

Awesome idea.... (none / 0) (#104)
by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:14:30 PM EST

What the hell...call up John McCain, Ralph Nader, Steve Kubby, Ron Paul...they can take it on the road across the country town hall style, unscreened questions, equal time. Let's party.


Won't hurt. . . (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:58:31 PM EST

her fundraising either. Just sayin'

saw the "comment" by Shuster today (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:16:35 PM EST

that was suppose to be an apology...Even the moderator called it a "comment"...too many excuses to be a sincere apology...Keep calling those numbers please....

Maybe an academic distinction, but (none / 0) (#1)
by Geekesque on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:29:52 PM EST

are NBC and MSNBC the same thing.

The Ohio debate Obama agreed to with Clinton is on NBC, as opposed to the channel which no one watches.

It is the same news division (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:35:07 PM EST

There is no distinction.

None.


btd (none / 0) (#105)
by jojomc on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:55:41 PM EST

Is your conspiracy theory that it was NBC who were for Saddam, or otherwise. I semi-recall a guy with a funny looking beard squinting ominously at a girl. Should I panic, or is Mr. McCarthy not to be disturbed?


: Another nonsensical lie (none / 0) (#107)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:43:33 AM EST

What is up with you fools?

So she will (none / 0) (#3)
by Jgarza on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:30:28 PM EST

debate on fox but not NBC. I think they need to be careful, if the get Schuster fired, this will probably backfire.

You do not believe Obama will do you? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:34:33 PM EST

Then she won't either.

Will he debate on any other network NOT NBC?

It is his network I know. Let's see if he will play at a neutral site.


Ohh please (none / 0) (#20)
by Jgarza on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:40:36 PM EST

she has her people working for CNN, so they have been pro Clinton. you know with tough questions like Diamonds or Pearls.
NBC is the most democrat favorable news outlet and here she is fighting with them. great idea.


"Her people" (5.00 / 3) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:46:37 PM EST

are NO LONGER "covering" the race for CNN. Obama got them kicked off.

Of course they were identified as open partisans for a candidate.

Unless you are arguing that the ENTIRE NBC network has openly admitted its support for Obama, I do not follow your thinking.

Of course, there was not much thinking to follow in the first place.


Isn't (5.00 / 4) (#38)
by Lena on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:48:43 PM EST

Gloria Borger on CNN? And Carl Bernstein?

These are 2 that I can think of right off the bat that seem to viscerally detest all things Clinton. Esepcially Bernstein. He's almost incoherent in his loathing.

Just out of curiosity, are there any on CNN who seem to dislike Obama? Even a little bit?


: anti Hillary coverage (none / 0) (#100)
by sas on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:43:18 PM EST

Boy do I agree with you on CNN 's Borger and Bernstein with their anti-Hillary take on everything. Even David Gergen is getting into it.
It really makes CNN look sophomoric and jingoistic.
I think the corporate news networks CNN and MSNBC are in cahoots to promote Obama. In fact I think they are entirely responsible for his recent momentum - everything is just so slanted in his direction.
I just hope the average person picks up the negativity, and treats it like the crap it is.

She needs clarify the fox issue (none / 0) (#7)
by doordiedem0crat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:35:27 PM EST

Clinton's decision to debate on FOX news is reprehensible and flies in the face of democrats. She's was an enabler for bush and now for Murdock.


Excuse me (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:36:43 PM EST

You seem to have mistaken this site for Daily Kos.

No more such comments.


Was.. (none / 0) (#19)
by doordiedem0crat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:40:26 PM EST

my statement factually inaccurate?


Yes (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:45:58 PM EST

Unless you argue that Obama is also an enabler, then it is factually inaccurate.

And of course a Murdoch enabler is wrong any way you slice it.

do not bring this dkos bs here. Call me all the names you want for this, OVER THERE.

I do not allow folks to do it to Obama here and I certainly will not allow you to do it to Clinton.


how is Obama an (none / 0) (#39)
by Jgarza on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:48:57 PM EST

enabler for her wanting to do a debate on fox?


: That's it (none / 0) (#49)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:51:16 PM EST

You are gone for the rest of the day.
One lie too many.
I will be edelting your comments for the rest of the day so do not bother. If you want, come back tomorrow.

I see that your upset (none / 0) (#42)
by doordiedem0crat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:49:57 PM EST

with me bringing Bush and her vote into the picture. I will stick to the subject at hand.

I continue to believe that she should provide clarity as to why she would debate on fox news and not stand with democrats against them.


I am not upset by it (none / 0) (#54)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:52:34 PM EST

I am calling you out for your factual inaacuracy.

I am pointing out your failure to bring up Obama's "enabling" of Bush by voting to fund the war.

I am pointing out you are a misleading hypocrite in your language.

Does that upset you?


Hold on... (none / 0) (#78)
by doordiedem0crat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:06:37 PM EST

Now voting for authorization is far different from voting when troops are in the line of fire.

Bush was already enabled.


Hold on (none / 0) (#81)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:08:00 PM EST

No funding, no war.

Enabling CONTINUED.

Sorry to upset you with that fact.


The previous war (none / 0) (#82)
by andgarden on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:12:17 PM EST

sigh. . .


Obama cares... (none / 0) (#83)
by doordiedem0crat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:13:35 PM EST

to support the troops when they are IN the field...not throw them out their without a plan when the administration screams terrorism.

These votes are not the same.


not the same... (none / 0) (#85)
by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:18:45 PM EST

but both enable.

No Money. No War. Period.


: Snap back to reality (none / 0) (#87)
by doordiedem0crat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:28:53 PM EST

Clinton voted for the war and did not use good judgement when Barack opposed it.
Barack ensured our troops are cared for..knowing there is no way in hell they were coming home. We ALL knew it wouldn't happen.
Give me a break.

To be fair (none / 0) (#22)
by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:41:48 PM EST

she was an enabler with the war. Everyone that voted to authorize it literally enabled that war.


Obama literally enabled the war (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:46:29 PM EST

by funding it.

If you are TRULY interested in being fair.


nope (none / 0) (#44)
by Jgarza on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:50:07 PM EST

that isn't true, that is the worst reasoning i have ever heard. it creates a situation where if you vote against authorizing a war and then vote to fund it you will be labeled a flip flopper. this is terribly flawed logic.


: dude (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:52:28 PM EST

that's what he did. he spoke out against the war and then funded it when he got into the senate. Had he never voted for a nickel in this war that would have been consistent. And he would be KILLING Hillary in the debates on Iraq had he done so.

: You are suspended from this site (none / 0) (#58)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:53:23 PM EST

until tomorrow.
Bye.

: Obama didn't vote against the war (none / 0) (#94)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:03:03 PM EST

He wasn't in the senate then. He didn't have a dog in the fight.
Yes, he gave a speech. However, he has not proven in any way that he wouldn't have voted FOR the war if under the same pressure as Hillary...with 70% approval of the public for the war, etc.
The whole idea that Obama "didn't vote for the war" is vacuous....sounds like a Republicanesque talking point.

I agree completely. (none / 0) (#46)
by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:50:25 PM EST

I decided to support Obama in spite of his funding of the war. It was however a difficult decision for me to do so. I am not at all happy with his war stance since he's been in the senate.


She's going on Fox (none / 0) (#101)
by sas on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:46:40 PM EST

probably because of all the networks they have been the most fair to her. (yes, thge detested Faux news)

God knows CNN and MSNBC have been worshipping at the church of Obama this whole election season, and have been very anti-Hillary.

Hey, maybe she'll pick up some disaffected McCain conservative votes!


MSNBC (none / 0) (#9)
by mouth of the south on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:36:14 PM EST

Oh, for God's sake, this blog is getting to be just too pro Clinton for my taste. Don't criticize MSNBC because you do the same thing to Obama on your blog. I have never seen such hand wringing as the Clinton backers are doing now. She wants to debate on Fox but not MSNBC? They openly pray for her to win so McCain can run against her. Fox knows that she would be easiest to beat and that is what they talk about every day endlessly. Now how is that not as bad as MSNBC?

: Interesting that you compare a blog (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:37:38 PM EST

with a supposed neutral news organization.
I rest my case.

Well (none / 0) (#14)
by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:37:42 PM EST

As many on here know I am a big Obama fan. And, I actually like watching MSNBC. My wife and I have been talking though about how they've become the other side of Fox News. I sort of feel like watching them now is getting together with friends to talk about why I like Obama. Which, you know, is great except that they're a news organization. In the end, I think they harm themselves, and Obama by being this way. I tend to think that just sticking to the facts actually helps Obama.

But getting rid of schuster over this? I dunno know about that.

: I do not think he should be fired (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:39:42 PM EST

I do believe he should be taken off the Clinton beat.
He should cover McCain.

ABC, CBS, etc (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:38:40 PM EST

If you mean cable, then CNN works.

Yes (none / 0) (#28)
by Jgarza on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:43:52 PM EST

the fair organization laced with former Clinton employees, of course you think they are fair.


Take debates back to PBS! (5.00 / 2) (#51)
by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:51:56 PM EST

And don't let any media make money by driving up ratings by driving down democratic process.


: man I SOOOOO agree! (5.00 / 0) (#61)
by Judith on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:55:09 PM EST

eff the networks and cable - why should they use our election to make money?

Unfortunately, even the non-Fox media sucks. (none / 0) (#18)
by Geekesque on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:39:46 PM EST

I should note, as others have, that the hyping of Obama by media folks tends to hurt by inflating expectations. The facts on the ground never supported the idea of Obama winning states like CA, MA, and NJ. But the media coverage did, aided by some bad polling.

If Clinton cancels the debate in Ohio, she'll have a very hard time getting a single debate out of Obama.

Well (none / 0) (#41)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:49:50 PM EST

That will be an interesting standoff.

We'll see where it goes.

Is Obama boycotting CNN?


He should, as I said on the Chelsea (5.00 / 2) (#59)
by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:53:54 PM EST

thread, Obama could make major points by speaking up as the father of daughters, too.

That he hasn't done so is another missed opportunity, like so many missed opportunities to speak out against sexism as well as racism.

Let's transcend gender, too.


CNN is certainly an option. (none / 0) (#63)
by Geekesque on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:55:20 PM EST

However, it gets a bit tricky for Clinton to demand debates and then back out of one. Obama would be kinda foolish to let her off the hook that easily.


bull (none / 0) (#70)
by Judith on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:58:46 PM EST

if she pulls out becasue of a comment like that pig shuster made Obama cant make a thing out of it without encouraging that kind of filth be directed at him by the GOP.


Shuster has been suspended. (none / 0) (#71)
by Geekesque on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:00:08 PM EST

Remember, Clinton is the one who wants the free media.


: ha (none / 0) (#73)
by Judith on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:03:28 PM EST

there are laws covering the public airways - but hey, dont let that get in the way of a sneer you feel you must make.

It's Money (none / 0) (#34)
by andreww on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:47:41 PM EST

Look, the reality is that with all news organizations the first and main thing they care about is selling advertising space. Period. This holds true for Newspapers, Magazines, etc. Some are able to maintain neutrality but they won't lose money at the expense of it. When Olberman came on the ratings went up and once that happens you want to keep them up. They've gotten themselves a niche of viewers that will watch them just the way fox has. CNN by the way isn't exactly neutral and there is a reason they are often referred to as the Clinton News Network. Though, I wouldn't argue they are as pro clinton as MSNBC is pro obama.

Shuster Suspended (none / 0) (#45)
by KevinMc on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:50:13 PM EST

I just received this from NBC News President Steve Capus.

NBC NEWS STATEMENT REGARDING CHELSEA CLINTON COMMENT:

On Thursday's "Tucker" on MSNBC, David Shuster, who was serving as guest-host of the program, made a comment about Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton campaign that was irresponsible and inappropriate. Shuster, who apologized this morning on MSNBC and will again this evening, has been suspended from appearing on all NBC News broadcasts, other than to make his apology. He has also extended an apology to the Clinton family. NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks.

Steve Capus

NBC News President

: Good for NBC (none / 0) (#67)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:58:28 PM EST

But I assume and actually hope the suspension is shortlived.
And he covers McCain when he comes back.

Choice of language (none / 0) (#48)
by Joike on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:51:00 PM EST

I can't believe that Shuster's choice of language was accidental.

Perhaps these kind of attacks are inevitable in an era where journalists are desparate to establish themselves as "edgy", but beyond being unprofessional, it is disgusting.

How is the language Shuster used different from some push-poll using inflamatory and misleading words?

Another poor reflection on a profession that just isn't serious about its supposed role in a democracy.

Even without the language, Shuster's assertion (that it is unseemly for a grown woman to help her parent in an election) is a sham. Just an excuse to insert a negative story about Hillary.

Was Shuster outraged or concerned about Romney 5 sons helping out? What a completely piggish smear job.

: He won't be doing that anytime soon (none / 0) (#56)
by scribe on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:52:57 PM EST

again - he's been suspended.

If Bill O. said this, any doubt at all who would (none / 0) (#50)
by Teresa on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:51:54 PM EST

be today's "Worst Person in the World"?

I first read about the Clinton spokesman on a NY Times blog. The comments there were disgusting. Do they always attract such haters? I'm starting to fear there will be no coming together after the nomination for some on both sides.

: get mad at MSNBC (none / 0) (#66)
by Judith on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:57:27 PM EST

for the filth or whomever says it...make your anger targeted and not general and that way we can come together - decent people - when the campaing is over.

That's what I've seen (none / 0) (#62)
by scribe on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:55:09 PM EST

in the prior thread which I linked in, and in a comment way down on this thread. The latter indicates the message came straight from the President of NBC News.

Shuster had a chance to take over the Tucker show, when Deadeye is out of office and they no longer need to keep one of the chief financers of the Libby Defense Fund (Tucker's dad) happy. Blew it.

: And TL just put it up on the main site (none / 0) (#65)
by scribe on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:56:29 PM EST

as the next post.
Wham.

Judith (none / 0) (#68)
by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:58:30 PM EST

stop the name calling. Your comments with them have been deleted.

I name called? (none / 0) (#75)
by Judith on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:04:09 PM EST

Please let me know what name I called and I wont use it again.


: do you mean (none / 0) (#80)
by Judith on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:07:58 PM EST

calling the guy on teevee a name after what he said? Good lord. I wont appologize for that.
Take care all.

I blame NBC for (none / 0) (#74)
by athyrio on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:03:29 PM EST

adding fuel to the fire of splitting up the democratic party before November...Gee, makes ya wonder about the fact that they are owned by a mega corporation....and also think about the fact that the newscasters dont seem scared in the least to use this type of language....HMMMMM....question....is the corporation that owns NBC connected in any way to the military industrial complex?? If so, they are doing the work of defeating our candidate in the fall....

GE (none / 0) (#86)
by Kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:22:19 PM EST

has TONS of military contracts--airplane engines, machinery, etc. You would not believe the extensive list of crap they make.

And, still, they need women to buy their washing machines, too...


: In the case of MSNBC (none / 0) (#97)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:13:22 PM EST

It's GE AND Microsoft.

Former Olbermann Fan (none / 0) (#79)
by ivs814 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:07:08 PM EST

It is really depressing to see Keith O join the ranks of anti-Hillary, Obama-worshiping pundits like Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough. It would also bother me to no end if the opposite were true, anti-Obama, Hillary-worshiping. It cannot be coincidental that this about face by Olbermann happened shortly after his pal Matthews was forced to apologize for his vile comments about Hillary. Now all of them on MSNBC walk in lock-step.

And in a related smackdown of Tweety ... (none / 0) (#88)
by Ellie on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:43:45 PM EST

At Salon.com, Kate Michelman tells: What I really wanted to say to Chris Matthews

[...]
Knowing that I had just announced my support for Barack Obama for president after having earlier supported my old friend John Edwards, Matthews had me on his show Monday. His first Hardball to me was one of his typical zingers: "Kate Michelman, how does it feel to have abandoned the cause of your life?"
The simple answer, Chris, is that I haven't [...]
The women's movement is about free choice, self-determination and challenging a status quo that fails a lot of Americans, not just women. And it is not about going along. It's about transcending, about having the freedom to follow one's heart, about creating and pursuing new opportunities, and about the American dream being for all Americans.
Chris' gotcha-type question to me and the semi-criticism implicit in it -- that as a woman I have some biological obligation to unreservedly support whatever woman is running -- are exactly the sentiments I faced when I first started working for a woman's right to choose. If women who vote for men are traitors, then are men who vote for women also traitors? What about African-Americans who vote for whites? Or whites who vote for African-Americans?
Laying this guilt trip, this hypocrisy, on women -- saying that those women who don't vote for other women are turncoats -- is tantamount to saying that women who exercise independent thought haven't the right to do that either. Could there be a more anti-feminist contention?

Tweety's such a bonehead he can't even regard Sen. Clinton as a separate entity from fmr. President Clinton, with a separate record and accomplishments.

Chris Matthews (and some of the emptier talking heads on other networks) just can't wait to get back to ravening over whatever rancid meat the gossip mill feeds them on "the Clintons", an obsession the vast majority of the voting public clearly doesn't share and never did. (Here's a quick link to the horror that is the Matthews Monitor page at Media Matters.)

It also annoys me that women, black and latino voters are continually being called out to justify their choices -- as if in exercising their franchise, they're children handling a volatile substance -- in such ways as neither Pundistan nor the conservative guardians of the status quo would dream of applying to white men and their (NPI) tools.

Another former Olberman fan (none / 0) (#89)
by sas on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:44:47 PM EST

I thought Keith's addition to the coverage would uplift MSNBC.

Sad to see Matthews' has brought Keith down, as he has done to Andrea Mitchell.

MSNBC's coverage is awful. I can't watch them anymore.,

You are right - they are the Fox news on the other side. Totally irresponsible and jingoistic.

the word pimping (none / 0) (#90)
by sas on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:53:13 PM EST

We are not offended by the word "pimping". We hear much worse on the street.

We are offended by way it is used, the IDEA behind it, and the fact that it is used in a derogatory way involving women.

Is Michelle Obama being "pimped" Were the Bush girls "pimped". How about Romney's sons? Oh, of course not Romney's sons - they are boys. Boys are not pimped. Girls are pimped.

Sexism.

the word pimping (none / 0) (#91)
by sas on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:53:51 PM EST

Blinkers (none / 0) (#92)
by jarober on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:24:06 PM EST

This is another one of those "whose ox is being gored" moments for the left. Back when MSNBC limited its shots to Republicans, it wasn't something you noticed. Now that Hillary is on the menu, you've suddenly noticed their biases.

Welcome to reality.

When has MSNBC ever been a LW propaganda organ? (none / 0) (#93)
by Ellie on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:59:12 PM EST

They fired their unapologetically left-of-center host Phil Donahue when his show had the highest ratings of the network, but prop up sagging BushCo megaphones like Tucker Carlson.

(Over at the even worse sibling channel CNBC, the intolerable and unwatchable right wing shill Dennis Miller was coddled to the extent of producers paying audience members to listen to his unfunny right wing crap.)


I think... (none / 0) (#95)
by jarober on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:05:54 PM EST

I think "unfunny" is a subjective judgment. I've always enjoyed Miller's rants, but a lot of people are going to miss his references. For them, I'm sure it's not very humorous.


Propaganda? (none / 0) (#96)
by jarober on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:07:45 PM EST

As to being a propaganda organ, What is Olbermann, if not a complete anti-Bush rant machine? And a fairly ill-informed one at that. As a sportscaster, he had some domain knowledge. As a political analyst? He manages to make O'Reilly look good - and that's very, very hard to do.


: One liberal show on one channel equals the rest? (none / 0) (#99)
by Ellie on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:33:02 PM EST

Please. The Bush administration's record of lying is unparalleled, with over 900 lies relating to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq alone.
It's the right, if not duty, of news shows to maintain a skeptical approach even to honest govt, never mind weasels as corrupt as BushCo.
Nothing on Countdown has been shown to be factually incorrect, but PRO Bush outlets fall down in that they parrot repeatedly disproved, debunked and fabricated talking points.
You're on thin ice here, and that's the truth.

Ummm (none / 0) (#102)
by jarober on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:57:21 PM EST

I love the way rabid partisans view this sort of thing. For the left, Bush is "the worst ever". For the right, that was Clinton.
that.

As to Olbermann, this search shows plenty of people who disagree with you.