Disrupting a convention

[The Return of the Raider]

BTW, Obama said he would appear for an interview with O'Reilly after the primary. It hasn't happened yet.

Yeah, it sounds like he his schedule is pretty tight considering that he's running for president. I don't really know. Do you think he is dodging Bill?

 

[huevonkiller]

O'Reilly didn't prefer Hillary over Obama when she wasn't named VP, he's been pro-Hillary (if you want to call it that) since she got screwed in the primary, went on the O'Reilly Factor, and admitted (as Gov. Rendell did on Hannity and Colmes tonight) that Fox News was the network that treated her fairly.

BTW, Obama said he would appear for an interview with O'Reilly after the primary. It hasn't happened yet.

Hillary didn't get screwed in the primary, not even close.

If women under 45 wanted her to be president, she would have been.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

O'Reilly didn't prefer Hillary over Obama when she wasn't named VP, he's been pro-Hillary (if you want to call it that) since she got screwed in the primary, went on the O'Reilly Factor, and admitted (as Gov. Rendell did on Hannity and Colmes tonight) that Fox News was the network that treated her fairly.

Does Bill O ever admit that he didn't treat a person fairly? Ask Bill to define fair. I don't buy that garbage for one second. Bill is paid to attack. If that means using Hillary as a weapon, so be it.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

Wow....

I wonder if these guys lean left or right. What do you think?


11 minutes ago...

Federal charges were filed Tuesday against three men who allegedly talked of killing Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

None of the charges concerned threats against Obama, and U.S. Attorney for Colorado Troy Eid stressed that the three never posed a serious danger to the Illinois senator.

"A bunch of meth heads put together; I don't know what they do," Eid said at a news conference with about 50 reporters from around the world. "There is no credible threat right now, and there was no credible threat."

The three men face charges that include possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of body armor by a violent felon, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute.

The three are Shawn Robert Adolf, 33; Tharin Robert Gartrell, 28; and Nathan Dwaine Johnson, 32.

Adolf talked of killing Obama in Denver and during his "inauguration," according to the criminal complaint. It was unclear if "inauguration" referred to Obama's planned acceptance speech for the nomination at Invesco Field on Thursday.

According to the complaint, the three men reportedly referred to Obama with a racial epithet and said that such a person should never live in the White House. They "could not believe how close he (Obama) was to becoming president."
Authorities said the alleged conversation took place at the Hyatt Regency Tech Center - Denver, where Johnson had a room, and the three thought Obama had a room there, too.

Eid said investigators were still looking into whether the men are connected to a white supremacist group.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

The police are downplaying this. Is it really no big deal when they find a sniper with intent to kill a candidate? within miles of said candidate?

FBI investigate 'Obama' plot

By Leonard Doyle in Denver
Tuesday, 26 August 2008

Just days before Barack Obama accepts the Democratic nomination before an open-air crowd on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's 'I Have A Dream' speech, the authorities in Denver are investigating a possible assassination plot against the man bidding to be the first black president in the White House.


Three people were being held in custody, one of whom jumped from a sixth floor window of a hotel in an attempt to escape. Denver police revealed that they had earlier found two high-powered rifles, one with a telescopic sight as well as a bullet proof vest, camouflage clothing, and walkie-talkies during a routine traffic check. At least one of the rifles had been stolen Kansas. The police also discovered 44 grams of methamphetamine in the car.
According to a local CBS news channel one of the three suspects told the police they were "going to shoot Obama from a high vantage point using a ... rifle ... sighted at 750 yards."

The authorities played down talk of an assassination plot and seemed determined not to allow the investigation to overshadow Mr Obama's big moment when he appears before an estimated 70,000 people at Invesco Field stadium tomorrow (THURS) night.

“We're absolutely confident there is no credible threat to the candidate, the Democratic National Convention, or the people of Colorado,” Troy Eid, the US attorney for Colorado, said in a statement.

However, CBS reporter Brian Maass, who broke the story, managed to briefly interview one of the suspects inside Denver City Jail on Monday night. "So your friends were saying threatening things about Obama?" he asked. "Yeah," a suspect named Nathan Johnson replied. "It sounded like they didn't want him to be president?" "Yeah," Mr Johnson said.

Denver Police Department said an “aggressive” inquiry was under with the Secret Service, the F.B.I. and a joint terrorism task force taking part. A law enforcement official in Denver told the Associated Press that the three men were facing only gun charges -- a signal that officials believe the trio never posed a real threat.

A heavy security cordon has been thrown up around the Democratic convention sites, with police in paramilitary uniform patrolling the streets and sharpshooters positioned on the top of tall buildings. Mr Obama has been the subject of many threats over the past two years, many from white supremacists, and his security is a constant nagging worry for American voters.

Hilary Clinton drew heavy criticism at the end of her bitter primary struggle with the Illinois Senator when she raised the assassination of Bobby Kennedy as a reason for staying in the race. Explaining why she refused to concede long after it was clear she could never win the nomination she said: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California..."

The first arrest was of an individual named Tharin Robert Gartrell, 28, who was driving erratically in a rented pickup truck in the early hours of Sunday morning. The others were identified as Nathan Johnson, 32, who was taken into custody a few hours later at a hotel, and Shawn Robert Adolf, 33, who leapt from a sixth-floor hotel window onto an awning below, breaking both his ankles

 

[Denny Crane]

Wow, the O'Reilly factor is now pro-Hillary. What a flip flop. As soon as they found out that Obama wasn't going with Hillary as VP, they had a complete ad campaign set up just for this. They are amazingly sleazy. For the past two days, Bill has been painting the picture that Hillary was completely shafted, and that either candidate would do so well to have her on their ticket. They are completely overblowing any conflict between Obama and Hillary at the present time. It seems that their angle is to tell dumb women (that might be in the room when their Budweiser-drinking husband is watching FOX News) that Obama is "alienating women". They're literally putting ads on TV that attempt to reign in really dumb females. This one girl is on an ad saying, "I always vote Democrat, but I'm voting for J McCain....", then whispers to the camera, "It's OK" <smile, wink="">.

If Fox doesn't have a dog in the Democratic Nomination Hunt, then maybe they're being a little more analytical of the situation instead of cheerleading. Tho O'Reilly is a pinhead, and I agree with you about Spike Lee being a terrific fellow and one of our great filmmakers.

Hillary made her speech last night. I watched it with my wife, and about 3/4 the way through the speech, I mentioned to her how Hillary had done not much more than talk about herself, why she ran, her policy ideas, and REALLY played the gender card to the hilt. While she started and ended by saying she supported Obama and that electing a Democrat was THE most important thing, there was nothing resembling a ringing endorsement of Obama. She only mentioned his name a handful of times in the whole speech.

</smile,>Think about what a ringing endorsement of Obama would be. "I know Obama, he's a great man and ready to lead this nation into a brighter future. There is no better person to be president." &c. Instead, it was along the lines of "I was the best choice, but since I am not the nominee, we have to elect Obama because he's better than McCain."

<smile, wink="">Do you agree?

One way to cover the news is to say what I just wrote. Another is to say "she hit the ball out of the park and united the party." The former is truthful, the latter is wishful thinking.

For the record, I do think she made a terriffic speech, did hit it out of the park, but it fed her agenda only. The superdelegates are still not bound by any rules to vote for Obama, and it was a sneaky backhanded way for her to bring out the most in any buyer's remorse they might have in choosing Obama over her. With Obama's weak showing in the polls, she effectively presented herself as a viable alternative.


</smile,>

 

[huevonkiller]

If Fox doesn't have a dog in the Democratic Nomination Hunt, then maybe they're being a little more analytical of the situation instead of cheerleading. Tho O'Reilly is a pinhead, and I agree with you about Spike Lee being a terrific fellow and one of our great filmmakers.

Hillary made her speech last night. I watched it with my wife, and about 3/4 the way through the speech, I mentioned to her how Hillary had done not much more than talk about herself, why she ran, her policy ideas, and REALLY played the gender card to the hilt. While she started and ended by saying she supported Obama and that electing a Democrat was THE most important thing, there was nothing resembling a ringing endorsement of Obama. She only mentioned his name a handful of times in the whole speech.

</smile,>Think about what a ringing endorsement of Obama would be. "I know Obama, he's a great man and ready to lead this nation into a brighter future. There is no better person to be president." &c. Instead, it was along the lines of "I was the best choice, but since I am not the nominee, we have to elect Obama because he's better than McCain."

<smile, wink="">Do you agree?

One way to cover the news is to say what I just wrote. Another is to say "she hit the ball out of the park and united the party." The former is truthful, the latter is wishful thinking.

For the record, I do think she made a terriffic speech, did hit it out of the park, but it fed her agenda only. The superdelegates are still not bound by any rules to vote for Obama, and it was a sneaky backhanded way for her to bring out the most in any buyer's remorse they might have in choosing Obama over her. With Obama's weak showing in the polls, she effectively presented herself as a viable alternative.


</smile,>

I thought the beginning of her speech was self-serving, and done intentionally or not it was divisive just as you stated. She should make people forget about the bitter primary process, but she's just bringing up freshly healed wounds.

Whatever, I don't give much importance to her speech either way.

 

[RipCity]

Sorry it took me so long to respond, been busy, but here it goes...

That would be like Best Buy complaining that there are more Circuit City commercials on tv. If Obama's "ad placement"/advertising has been more effective than McCain's, or if he is more newsworthy, then don't whine. Blame the Republican party, well actually just McCain's campaign, for not working as effectively.

Besides, Obama could just as easily complain that Fox News constantly smears him with racist and untrue slander. Have you ever heard McCain called a terrorist on Fox? No, but Obama didn't send people to go camp outside Fox news and hold signs that say "McCain is a terroist"? NO.

Wow, this is such an atrocious and totally unapplicable analogy it makes me sick. If I was talking strictly about campaign ads, then yes, you would blame the McCain campaign for not spending as much money on advertising. However, we are talking about coverage of the candidates on major news networks. CNN is seemingly ALWAYS talking about Obama and generally speaking he can't fart without them knowing about it. When Obama took his trip overseas he had the 3 biggest anchors following him everywhere and wall to wall coverage every step of the way. When McCain made his most recent trip earlier in the year, CNN reported on it from New York, and it appeared in the "in other news" portion of the broadcast.

As for Fox News "smearing" Obama with racist and untrue slander...I'd challenge you to post youtube videos of this supposed slander and I'll go out on a limb and say that I can probably find factual backing for the videos you post. If you want to go into Fox news being biased (sorry, can't help but laugh hysterically given the bias of other news networks) I could always bring up the George Mason study that proves Fox News to be the most balanced news network in existence. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/505231/media_reports_hard_on_clinton_fox_most.html

Actually show me where I said that it is a big deal? This is a quote from my second post in this thread

You didn't say it was a big deal, however that was the conclusion I came to after reading the thread, my apologies.

WOW. First of all, I'm not very much into party politics. I vote for who I feel the better candidate will be. So simply because I APPEAR to support Obama in this thread I'm a classic Democrat?

Well if you are impartial and vote for who is the better candidate, then what is it about Obama that makes him a better candidate than McCain? Before you respond, "It's time for a change" won't do.

So basically you're complaints are:

1. Barrack has a ridiculous edge in press coverage.
2. LIBERALS want him to be the next president (LOL).
3. You don't think it's time for a black president.
4. You don't feel that Obama has defined "change".

1. Yes
2. I have no problem with Liberals wanting him to be President, however when you are a liberal who has influence over public opinion and change your broadcasting to show your candidate in the best possible light, yes I have a problem with that.
3. Nice job trying to paint me as a racist. I object to the notion that "It's time for a black President" simply because it will never just be time for a black President. When a candidate comes along who is the best man for the job and happens to be Black, that will be the time. Until then, you don't force some inexperienced jackass into office for the sake of having a black man run the country. For the record, I'd vote for Colin Powell over McCain.
4. He hasn't

As for the edge in press, that is the party's own fault, it goes both ways as Obama gets negative press for some ridiculous reasons, agree? How can you complain that Liberal media supports the liberal candidate more? If you don't think it's time for a black president you are ignorant, but entitled to your opinion. I've never understood the whole, "it's time for/are we ready for a black president" question, its silly to me. And Obama has defined change, study his platform more closely.

Once again, horribly wrong. The people to blame for Obamas ridiculous edge in press coverage are the head honchos at CNN and MSNBC. The republican party has NOTHING to do with how much press McCain gets on these networks. I can complain because it is unfair. Liberals control the vast majority of news you see today, with their own tilt on it. I am all for Freedom of the Press, however this is becoming a problem because of the massive influence these networks have on the country.

 

[Jurassic]

*Sigh*

I thought we were done with this.

First and foremost, I was not trying to paint you as a racist. 50 Cent even said that America might not be ready for a black president, his reasoning being an assassination attempt. I don't agree with that reasoning and 50's opinion is irrelevant to me, but the point is there are many people of all races who think America is not ready for a black president. I label them all as ignorant, which is how I referred to you, not as a racist. Once again, read before posting. But since you didn't, here's the quote.

If you don't think it's time for a black president you are ignorant, but entitled to your opinion. I've never understood the whole, "it's time for/are we ready for a black president" question, its silly to me.

I'm not going to post a bunch of clips for you of racism towards Obama on the part of Fox News, if you are really oblivious to it then your complaints of unbiased coverage are completely invalidated to me because you clearly do not follow both sides of the issue. Ann Coulter called him Hitler, they accused he and his wife of making a terrorist fist pound, focused on him being half black (which is true, but consider the motivation behind that statement), focusing on the fact that his middle name is Hussein. What is to be gained by me posting all that stuff here, you trying to justify it all?

Anyway I'd rather move on but feel free to have the last word .

 

[Jurassic]

2. I have no problem with Liberals wanting him to be President, however when you are a liberal who has influence over public opinion and change your broadcasting to show your candidate in the best possible light, yes I have a problem with that.

LOL. Okay wait a minute.

So you have a problem with Liberal coverage being too pro Obama, but no problem with FOX's slander towards Obama? As evidenced in this quote from your last post.

As for Fox News "smearing" Obama with racist and untrue slander...I'd challenge you to post youtube videos of this supposed slander and I'll go out on a limb and say that I can probably find factual backing for the videos you post.

Okay, I'll gladly wait while you show me some factual backing that Obama is a terrorist and a modern day Hitler.

You say that you have a problem with liberals with influence changing broadcasting to favor Obama, but no problem with FOX doing the same to hurt him? Brilliant.

 

[cpawfan]

Wow....

I wonder if these guys lean left or right. What do you think?

Clearly they are Hillary supporters

 

[Denny Crane]

This is not a right wing WWW site:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/17/151133/172

Obama and Ayers: The Khalidi Question


By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:11:00 PM EST


The Swamp has a long profile on University of Chicago Professor William Ayers. I don't think that Obama's association with Ayers is a problem because of Ayers' Weatherground past. And I support President Clinton's pardon and clemency for the two members of the group because it was based upon valid considerations and because we need Presidents who give more, not fewer grants of clemency.


In addition, I have admired Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, for taking in and raising Chesa Boudin from the age of 14 months, when his parents, Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, were arrested for their misdeeds with the Weather Underground. Chesa went on to graduate from Yale and become a Rhodes Scholar and an advocate for children of the imprisoned. A few years ago he wrote a very moving article, I am the son of Inmate 83A6158, about a jail visit with his parents. Kathy Boudin finally was released on parole in 2003.


I also applaud the work that Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn and Obama have done on behalf of juvenile offenders.


For the past few weeks, however, I have been concerned about a totally different issue with respect to Prof. Ayers: his political views concerning Palestine and Israel. The LA Times recently explored Obama's connection to those politics through his and Ayers' service on the board of the Woods Fund, during which time he and Ayers voted to award a grant of $70,000 to an organization created by Rashid Khalidi. The article raises questions about the depth and sincerity of Obama's expressed support for Israel.


[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]



Khalidi, like Ayers, held a fundraiser for Obama at his home. The Ayers event was in 1995 as Obama was making his first bid for the Illinois state senate. Khalidi held his event for Obama in 2000 when Obama made his failed bid for the U.S. House. From the LA Times article linked above:

In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund's board of directors. At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.
​

The following is taken from a column about a debate on Mideast policy that took place at Columbia University in 2005, at which Khalidi was a panelist [Mideast Parley Takes Ugly Turn At Columbia U., The New York Sun, February 4, 2005, available on Lexis.com.]

How did a great institution of higher learning allow itself to be transformed into a platform for vicious political propaganda and hate speech directed against one country, Israel? Surely one crucial moment in this transformation was Columbia's decision to raise $4 million - including a contribution from the United Arab Emirates - to create the Edward Said endowed chair in Arab studies, and then to give the prize to professor Khalidi.



We don't doubt that Mr. Khalidi has academic credentials. Compared to professors Massad and Pappe, he is a model of decorum and moderation. But when Columbia academic officials made this choice they knew they were getting a Palestinian political activist. From 1976 to 1982, Mr. Khalidi was a director in Beirut of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA. Later he served on the PLO "guidance committee" at the Madrid peace conference.



In bringing professor Khalidi to Morningside Heights from the University of Chicago, Columbia also got itself a twofer of Palestinian activism and advocacy. Mr. Khalidi's wife, Mona, who also served in Beirut as chief editor of the English section of the WAFA press agency, was hired as dean of foreign students at Columbia's SIPA, working under Dean Anderson.



In Chicago, the Khalidis founded the Arab American Action Network, and Mona Khalidi served as its president. A big farewell dinner was held in their honor by AAAN with a commemorative book filled with testimonials from their friends and political allies. These included the left wing anti-war group Not In My Name, the Electronic Intifada, and the ex-Weatherman domestic terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. (There were also testimonials from then-state Senator Barack Obama and the mayor of Chicago.)



The message sent by Columbia University officials by this choice was that they were determined to honor the memory of Edward Said by continuing to have radical Palestinian activism on campus.
​

I don't know whether this column is right-wing propaganda or has some kernels of truth. But Obama has placed Khalidi in issue by his outreach to Jewish voters in the presidential campaign and his statements at a campaign event such as "Nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of anti- Semitism than I have."
It would be one thing if he acknowledged, if true, that he wasn't always such a strong supporter of Israel -- particularly while he was a state legislator in Illinois -- and explain his evolving positions. Or, if he thinks he has been consistent in his support for Israel, explain this. I'd like to hear him distance himself from the expressed beliefs of Rashid Khalidi, just as he has distanced himself from objectionable remarks of Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Wright.



Larry and Susan at No Quarter have been all over Khalidi and Obama and Ayers. I have far fewer problems with Ayers than Larry and his co-bloggers, and certainly none based on his work on behalf of juvenile offenders.



But I would like an explanation from Obama on his expressed support for Israel and his past support for Khalidi, which was shared by Ayers. In view of Obama's extensive reachout to Jewish voters, I think that's a reasonable request.



Again, my prior post on this is here.

 

[Real]

Again, speaking of media bias....

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[Jurassic]

I could see multiple points being expressed in the posting of those two videos concerning media bias, even in the second video alone. Which point were you trying to make? Only asking because I was not sure.

 

[Real]

I could see multiple points being expressed in the posting of those two videos concerning media bias, even in the second video alone. Which point were you trying to make? Only asking because I was not sure.

It underscores my point above. People like KO turning on anyone that doesn't kiss Obama's ass or MSNBC's ass.

It's really not more media bias as it is jealously of Fox News.

 

[Jurassic]

That's a good point Real. I also thought it was interesting that the lady in the second clip kept telling Wolfson that he was making good points. Generally media should just state the point or acknowledge it and move on.

 

[Denny Crane]

I find it amusing that MSNBC is taking potshots at Fox for signing up Hillary's press guy when MSNBC was all over hiring Bush's press guy when he wrote a tell-all book.

It was very much the same deal in both cases.

 

[RipCity]

*Sigh*

I thought we were done with this.

First and foremost, I was not trying to paint you as a racist. 50 Cent even said that America might not be ready for a black president, his reasoning being an assassination attempt. I don't agree with that reasoning and 50's opinion is irrelevant to me, but the point is there are many people of all races who think America is not ready for a black president. I label them all as ignorant, which is how I referred to you, not as a racist. Once again, read before posting. But since you didn't, here's the quote.



I'm not going to post a bunch of clips for you of racism towards Obama on the part of Fox News, if you are really oblivious to it then your complaints of unbiased coverage are completely invalidated to me because you clearly do not follow both sides of the issue. Ann Coulter called him Hitler, they accused he and his wife of making a terrorist fist pound, focused on him being half black (which is true, but consider the motivation behind that statement), focusing on the fact that his middle name is Hussein. What is to be gained by me posting all that stuff here, you trying to justify it all?

Anyway I'd rather move on but feel free to have the last word .

Ann Coulter is a GUEST on Fox News if I recall correctly. Shes also a right wing nutjob and can be expected to make stupid statements on a pretty regular basis. E.D. Hill is a Fox Anchor and that comment isn't exactly appropriate either. However those 2 things alone are not Fox News blatantly spinning their programming to be positive for one candidate or another. Pulling a page from your weak play book, why don't you READ my whole post and you'll notice I never said I didn't have a problem with it. Of course I cannot find anything to prove Obama is a terrorist or Hitler. I could very easily find some evidence that some of his close associates are though.

The bottom line is this, the bias of CNN and MSNBC are beyond arguing.

I also like how you totally dodged the fact that your reply to my original post was an epic failure due to you not understanding the difference between network coverage and campaign ads.

 

[Jurassic]

Ok, you win. Lets move on.

 

[Real]

MSNBC prez defends convention team
By: Michael Calderone
August 27, 2008 10:57 PM EST

DENVER — Amid a spate of awkward on-air conflicts among MNSBC anchors at this week’s Democratic convention, some staff members say there are sharp internal disputes at the cable network over whether its opinion and personality-driven political coverage has crossed the line.

“The situation at our channel is about to blow up,” a high-ranking MSNBC journalist told Politico on Wednesday.

Two other MSNBC sources said some of the testy on-air exchanges between Keith Olbermann — whose quick-witted and often caustic commentary has fueled ratings growth — and other network personalities were a public glimpse of much more intense behind-the-scenes turmoil.

As replays of the conflicts became YouTube hits, MSNBC President Phil Griffin gave his first public defense in a Politico interview.

“MSNBC does not have an ideology,” Griffin said. “We hire smart people who are passionate about their love of politics and love of news.”

“Do I want them to have squabbles?” Griffin asked. “No. But I understand they’re human.”

In addition to Olbermann, MSNBC personalities Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough and David Shuster were involved in Denver controversies.

On Monday evening, Olbermann interrupted Scarborough while he was talking about McCain being competitive in the polls. “Jesus, Joe, why don’t you get a shovel?” Olbermann remarked.

On “Morning Joe” the following day, a clearly agitated Scarborough went off on Shuster during a discussion of Iraq, which quickly devolved over several cringe-worthy minutes into personal attacks, such as Scarborough telling the world how his colleague missed the show three times by oversleeping. "Are you Rip Van Shuster?” Scarborough asked. “Have you been sleeping for the past couple of months?”

But Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida, became enraged when Shuster made a reference to “your party.” Asked by Scarborough what his party was, Shuster said he was an “independent.”

"I feel so comforted by the fact that you're an independent,” Scarborough said, in a mocking tone. “I bet everybody at MSNBC has independent on their voting cards. Oh, we're down the middle now.” (Shuster left the set, but returned later to hug it out, "Entourage"-style.)

That night, Scarborough told NPR that he “get frustrated by people who have an obvious partisan bias that don't proclaim that bias.”

The old debate over election coverage bias was given new life on Sunday, when Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell — who’d remarked during the primaries that Fox News was the “most objective” network — told a panel of Sunday show anchors, including NBC’s Tom Brokaw, that “MSNBC was the official network of the Obama campaign."

“I’ve got to laugh a little bit,” Griffin said, over the notion that MSNBC has an agenda, while Rendell is “the voice of reason.”

“Ed Rendell, bless his soul, has an agenda,” Griffin said. “Period.”

Even with Obama as the presumptive nominee, it was MSNBC vs. the Clinton team again, a battle that played out throughout the primaries.

During Tuesday night’s broadcast, both Olbermann and Matthews took shots at Howard Wolfson, the Clinton campaign’s former communications director, criticizing him as a Republican collaborator because of his work as a Fox News analyst.

Matthews called Wolfson a "little toy soldier waiting on the shelf," while Olbermann compared him to “Tokyo Rose,” the woman who delivered propaganda over the airwaves during World War II.

“I think these antics have seriously damaged NBC's brand,” wrote Wolfson in an e-mail to Politico.
On Wednesday, Wolfson criticized MSNBC on the air, too.

"I'm not gonna take any lectures on how to be a good Democrat from two people who spent the last two years relentlessly attacking Bill and Hillary Clinton every day," Wolfson said Wednesday on Fox News.

Also on Wednesday, the New York Post reported that Olbermann was an obstacle in allowing McCain adviser-turned-NBC political analyst Mike Murphy to get on the air during the convention. Murphy was bumped from Monday’s convention coverage due to “technical difficulties,” the Post reported. He also didn’t appear on Tuesday.

“I’m told I’ll be on the air tonight,” Murphy said, when reached by phone Wednesday.

And so will Olbermann and Matthews, anchoring on a big night when Bill Clinton hits the stage. But last night the two volatile hosts bickered, with Matthews jumping into the frame as Olbermann introduced House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.).

"You made that sound, Keith,” Matthews said, raising his voice. “I can do the same to you. That's what I thought, and I said it."

Some sources who have worked with Olbermann at MSNBC describe him as a difficult colleague, and one source said that there are tensions with Matthews.

Regardless, Griffin said he has faith in his convention anchors — including Olbermann, a scourge of the right — for both the final days in Denver and next week in St. Paul, Minn.

“Look, when Keith anchors, he plays it straight down the line,” Griffin said. “This is our team. They’ve served us well. We love ’em, and we’re going to be at the Republican convention, and it’s going to be great. And I don’t have any hesitation.”

© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12900.html

 

[huevonkiller]

MSNBC prez defends convention team
By: Michael Calderone
August 27, 2008 10:57 PM EST

DENVER — Amid a spate of awkward on-air conflicts among MNSBC anchors at this week’s Democratic convention, some staff members say there are sharp internal disputes at the cable network over whether its opinion and personality-driven political coverage has crossed the line.

“The situation at our channel is about to blow up,” a high-ranking MSNBC journalist told Politico on Wednesday.

Two other MSNBC sources said some of the testy on-air exchanges between Keith Olbermann — whose quick-witted and often caustic commentary has fueled ratings growth — and other network personalities were a public glimpse of much more intense behind-the-scenes turmoil.

As replays of the conflicts became YouTube hits, MSNBC President Phil Griffin gave his first public defense in a Politico interview.

“MSNBC does not have an ideology,” Griffin said. “We hire smart people who are passionate about their love of politics and love of news.”

“Do I want them to have squabbles?” Griffin asked. “No. But I understand they’re human.”

In addition to Olbermann, MSNBC personalities Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough and David Shuster were involved in Denver controversies.

On Monday evening, Olbermann interrupted Scarborough while he was talking about McCain being competitive in the polls. “Jesus, Joe, why don’t you get a shovel?” Olbermann remarked.

On “Morning Joe” the following day, a clearly agitated Scarborough went off on Shuster during a discussion of Iraq, which quickly devolved over several cringe-worthy minutes into personal attacks, such as Scarborough telling the world how his colleague missed the show three times by oversleeping. "Are you Rip Van Shuster?” Scarborough asked. “Have you been sleeping for the past couple of months?”

But Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida, became enraged when Shuster made a reference to “your party.” Asked by Scarborough what his party was, Shuster said he was an “independent.”

"I feel so comforted by the fact that you're an independent,” Scarborough said, in a mocking tone. “I bet everybody at MSNBC has independent on their voting cards. Oh, we're down the middle now.” (Shuster left the set, but returned later to hug it out, "Entourage"-style.)

That night, Scarborough told NPR that he “get frustrated by people who have an obvious partisan bias that don't proclaim that bias.”

The old debate over election coverage bias was given new life on Sunday, when Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell — who’d remarked during the primaries that Fox News was the “most objective” network — told a panel of Sunday show anchors, including NBC’s Tom Brokaw, that “MSNBC was the official network of the Obama campaign."

“I’ve got to laugh a little bit,” Griffin said, over the notion that MSNBC has an agenda, while Rendell is “the voice of reason.”

“Ed Rendell, bless his soul, has an agenda,” Griffin said. “Period.”

Even with Obama as the presumptive nominee, it was MSNBC vs. the Clinton team again, a battle that played out throughout the primaries.

During Tuesday night’s broadcast, both Olbermann and Matthews took shots at Howard Wolfson, the Clinton campaign’s former communications director, criticizing him as a Republican collaborator because of his work as a Fox News analyst.

Matthews called Wolfson a "little toy soldier waiting on the shelf," while Olbermann compared him to “Tokyo Rose,” the woman who delivered propaganda over the airwaves during World War II.

“I think these antics have seriously damaged NBC's brand,” wrote Wolfson in an e-mail to Politico.
On Wednesday, Wolfson criticized MSNBC on the air, too.

"I'm not gonna take any lectures on how to be a good Democrat from two people who spent the last two years relentlessly attacking Bill and Hillary Clinton every day," Wolfson said Wednesday on Fox News.

Also on Wednesday, the New York Post reported that Olbermann was an obstacle in allowing McCain adviser-turned-NBC political analyst Mike Murphy to get on the air during the convention. Murphy was bumped from Monday’s convention coverage due to “technical difficulties,” the Post reported. He also didn’t appear on Tuesday.

“I’m told I’ll be on the air tonight,” Murphy said, when reached by phone Wednesday.

And so will Olbermann and Matthews, anchoring on a big night when Bill Clinton hits the stage. But last night the two volatile hosts bickered, with Matthews jumping into the frame as Olbermann introduced House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.).

"You made that sound, Keith,” Matthews said, raising his voice. “I can do the same to you. That's what I thought, and I said it."

Some sources who have worked with Olbermann at MSNBC describe him as a difficult colleague, and one source said that there are tensions with Matthews.

Regardless, Griffin said he has faith in his convention anchors — including Olbermann, a scourge of the right — for both the final days in Denver and next week in St. Paul, Minn.

“Look, when Keith anchors, he plays it straight down the line,” Griffin said. “This is our team. They’ve served us well. We love ’em, and we’re going to be at the Republican convention, and it’s going to be great. And I don’t have any hesitation.”

© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12900.html

Keith does seem a bit more "straight down the line" when he's off his show and anchoring some big event for MSNBC. I think they could do better than him though.