3/21/09 11:50 PM

Friday Links & Open Thread

Latest cable news links [7:45 pm]:

Greta Pix: East Wing.

Red Eye guest host.

David Gregory slipping? FNC isn't. Thursday's numbers.

Shep in NOLA (v/TVN).

Top five worst newscasters?

Obama to attack Fox?

Common ground.

Audio: Tony Snow's health update.

Rachel Sklar discovers Olbermann's misogyny (v/TVN).

Hotline quotes

Matthews v McNulty.

ObamaWatch: The Ticket, Swampland, Observer, Hollywood Reporter, The Caucus, Red State, TV Plus, Daily Kos, The Swamp, Wonkette, HuffPo, MoJo.

Honest analyst.

Abrams v Olbermann?

BizChannel battle.

Papal critique.

MSNBC: the place for jogging.

Use our valuable bandwidth to post your cable news comments in today's open thread. Standard rules apply.

On The Mark
In my view, the most interesting cable news event this week was not on FNC, nor was it Olbermann/Maddow, nor was it even, directly speaking, the Pennsylvania primary coverage. It was Carville on CNN Cooper and King). We tend to overlook Carville because he has outraged us so often the shock value is diminished. But, he is a brilliant political analyst, far brighter and perhaps even far more cunning than Rove. Rove's strength, as shown by his recent stints on FNC, is much more action, one-on-one with operatives in the gutters, usually the gutters of the South. Carville is the strategist, knowing what is happening in the gutters and directing operatives to and through the filth, while Rove is the tactician, gleefully rolling around in the muck and the mire. HArd to say which is worse.
During the early part of (Bill) Clinton's second term, someone told me the Clintons blow through people's lives, taking what is useful to them and leaving the wreckage for someone else to clean up. In my observation, that tends to be true, and I think we are beginning to see some of the by-products of the phenomenon, with some of the recovered victims speaking out. Richardson. Reich. Perhaps, now, Emanuel.
When this campaign finally ends, what of Carville? Has he so marginalized himself as a shill on cable and broadcast news that he simply becomes a caricature of himself? In other words, does he become a male Matalin, someone merely reflecting the light of others and diminished when that light is extinguished? I think that is distinctly possible. And, it's unfortunate. It is a loss of great talent and skill. Carville (and Matalin) will prosper. It is in their nature to do so, but will they ever be respected? To be sure, in Carville's case, victimization is the price exacted by the odd sort of loyalty the Clinton's demand. But, in the end, it is really his fault.
April 25, 2008, 9:05:20 AM EDT – Like – Reply

The Ticket piece quotes Wallace as talking about the effectiveness of "the clock" in persuading Obama to interview with Fox and then goes on to offer what seems like its own (The Ticket's) analysis that it's really about Obama reaching out to conservative Dems.
Didn't Chris Wallace say that too? The Kurtz piece quoted him as explicitly saying that key to Obama agreeing to sit down to interview with FOX is his strategy to court blue-collar Dems.
I know it's a little thing, but by acting as though Wallace isn't aware of, or wants to ignore the obvious and spin the gimmick, The Ticket short shifts him.
April 25, 2008, 9:20:05 AM EDT – Like – Reply

I've read Richardson and Reich both comment on Obama's superior policy positions and what they view as his constancy on the Iraq War. They have both criticized Clinton's campaign as being lackluster and at times divisive.
However, I've read nothing from them that would in the slightest indicate that they feel themselves to be recovering victims in the sense of the oft used analogy of F. Scott Fitzgerald's rich Buchanans, who waltzed through people's lives making messes and leaving others to clean up.
I'd certainly be interesting hearing THAT. Please elaborate.
April 25, 2008, 9:32:21 AM EDT – Like – Reply

On The Mark
... some of the recovered victims speaking out. Richardson. Reich. Perhaps, now, Emanuel.
I did not intend and I did not think that I expressed or implied that the recovered victims were decrying their victimization. They have taken actions or, in the case of Emanuel, seem to be in the process of taking actions, which assert their freedom. I would think it would be suicide for an male politician to scream that he had been victimized. Conventional wisdom is that male sexual assault victims seldom speak of the assault because they are embarassed to do so. In males, that embarassment is the result of an admission of powerlessness and weakness more than it is shame at the attack itself. I realize that is an over-blown metaphor, but there is truth in it and relevance and application to the present circumstances.  
In the context of the campaign alone, at the early stages, when (Hillary) Clinton presumed she was to be crowned, the superdelgates and other key Democrats were told, as if from a talking point memo. "This bus is about to leave. You need to get on it. If you miss the bus, we're not coming back for you." In other words, undiluted bullying. There is no stronger indicia of victimizing someone than taking or attempting to take away their free choice. So, I am rather puzzled by your remarks, and from your rather obvious far right wing political leanings and strong Republican party identification, why you so rushed to the defense of (Senator) Clinton. Although, that has certainly become the modus operandi of your ilk in these last days, it is still a puzzlement to me.
Now, more to the point of this blog, which, by the way is not to use every opportunity afforded you to attack me,* Carville on Cooper and King shows the ugly, ugly side of the victimizer when the victim asserts his independence. The victimizer has lost power, which is most disconcerting, but the victimizer has to admit that he or she has lost power, which is even more painful. A sophisticated victimizer, like (Bill) Clinton, knows when to pull back to keep the power; an unsophisticated victimizer, like (Hillary) Clinton, merely paints herself or himself as a victim; a crude victimizer, like Carville, thrashes about wildly. I am sure you agree we see this happening in all three, and cable news has been the venue for this tired and tiresome mini-series.
I'll end, so you have time to ferociously and personally attack my motivation, my analysis and my writing.*
*See, male as victim is unappealing and ugly. All the Marys in Heaven Be Blessed that Richardson, Reich and Emanuel recognize that and are not given to arterial bisection.
April 25, 2008, 1:24:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply

On The Mark
The Newscasters list is great, although I am not sure about the term. I suppose "newscaster can be as generic as you like. At least, it's not "journalist". My picks would be a bit altered:
April 25, 2008, 1:48:40 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike Chimeri
Here's *my* list:
5-A. Stewart
Anyway, I'm hoping Obama doesn't sandbag/play gotcha with Fox on FNS. But he probably will. If so, he'll join the ranks of that Camp guy, Stephanie Miller, and Naomi Wolf.
To my far-left friends: Fox News Channel is not biased, is not an arm of the Republican party, does not get Republican talking points, and does not employ left-leaning hacks. Do you understand? (No, you don't, and you never will. And I have to live with that.)
April 25, 2008, 1:58:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike Chimeri
Oh, and please keep off "Fox and Friends" and BOR.
April 25, 2008, 2:03:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply

My 5 Worst Newscasters:
5. Shuster
4. Dobbs
3. Matthews
2. Abrams
1. Olbermann
April 25, 2008, 2:12:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Well, all the Marys in heaven be blessed that Emmanuel, Richardson, and Carville, have you to save them from any unmanly claims of victimization via touting their case for them.
I've stated MY opinion there. I won't take your sort of liberty by arguing that these men would certainly agree...
And if your articulation of the thoughts of men who have not expressed anything similar happens to coincide with your stumping for Obama against Hillary, that's all just a mere happy coincidence no doubt...  
I don't know about my "ilk", but I would have been over-the-moon had you been able to produce something other than utter psychobabble in defending your victimization at the hands of Buchanans analogy. The slightest hint of a Hubblesque 'I guess I'm supposed to roll over one more time" type of statement in the most murky of contexts still would have brought a smile to my face for all the heinous years when you and your ilk hated the right more than you loved the truth.
Was I aware that you weren't going to be able to do it? Yes. Was I aware that you knew you were confabulating while waxing dramatic and cared not at all? Indeed! Well learned from past experience.
Is it worth the time to expose that here? Always.
April 25, 2008, 2:28:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike Chimeri
Just to clarify, "A. Stewart" is Alison Stewart, MSNBC anchor and OlbySub.
April 25, 2008, 2:28:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Not all are "newscasters", but it's my list of journalists who are some of the most biased in the business:
5. Dan Rather
4. AP reporter Scott Linlaw
3. Carole Simpson
2. David Shuster
1. Keith Olbermann
April 25, 2008, 2:35:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply

On The Mark
So, Mike, what do you find so objectionable about Cafferty? Maybe I just have a softspot for curmudgeons, but I rather enjoy him, at least in the limited time he is given.
I had great hopes for Gregory, but he has, so far, been disappointing in his current position. I viewed him as a great White House correspondent, but the White House press office is rather a dead place, this late into a lane duck's term. I can understand a correspondent's desire to anchor, but I am not sure it's all that good an exchange for the network or the viewers.
Related to F&F, I see Greg Kelly, who is the only one of the (old) crew I could stand, on a midmorning news program on FNC. Is that a permanent change? If so, I think it might be a very good one.
April 25, 2008, 2:42:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike Chimeri
I think Jack Cafferty comes off as a grumpy old man with a far-left mindset. I'm ashamed I ever liked him in his days at News 4 New York (WNBC) and Channel 11 (WPIX). But if you like him, that's fine. The ladies love Cafferty.  
April 25, 2008, 3:08:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply

On The Mark
The women in my life can't stand him, but I still think you hit upon something. In my experience, perhaps terribly provincial, grumpy old men are all right-wingers (although not all right-wingers are grumpy old men). To have a grumpy old man who is a left-of-center is something of a novelty. I suppose I always thought we had masses of grumpy old men, but just a handful of true curmudgeons. Cafferty is one. Although I can see why many people object to him, I, for one, would enjoy a nice glass of tawny port with him while we commented on the great issues of the day: why highway signs fade so fast, why there is no lip on a can of evaporative milk, why fat women are draw to scrawny men and dachshunds, why so many people serve Pinot Noir in a glass more suited to Sauvignon Blanc. I think it would be an enjoyable evening.
April 25, 2008, 3:46:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Just remember if you see him driving, run.
April 25, 2008, 4:00:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike Chimeri
OTM, I said "the ladies love Cafferty" because I thought you were a woman. For all I know, I'm wrong in thinking that. If you're a man, I'm sorry for thinking you were not. This is what happens when I don't have an e-mail address. I have to air things out on a message board or in comments.
April 25, 2008, 4:10:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike Chimeri
And I was saying I don't have your e-mail address, not that I don't have one.
April 25, 2008, 4:11:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply

On The Mark
You're wicked, Johnny!
April 25, 2008, 4:17:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Maybe Andy Rooney, Mike Malloy, Pete Stark, and Bill Clinton can join you.
Sean Penn and James Wolcott can continue to ripen on the vine.
April 25, 2008, 4:28:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply

On The Mark
James Wolcott, assuredly, Andy Rooney, perhaps. Bill Clinton hardly seems to fit. He is too gregarious. The others are rank amateurs.
April 25, 2008, 4:37:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I agree with the description "rank"...
April 25, 2008, 4:51:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply

david smawley
OTM, share a glass of Tawny Port with Cafferty or my choice, share a very dry, straight up Tanquery Martini with Julie Banderas. I think the conversation would be just fine. I like my side.
April 25, 2008, 7:31:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I can see it already. Obama is going to go on Fox. He will get beat up, and then cry "poor me, Fox was mean"
April 25, 2008, 7:43:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike Chimeri
Margaret Hoover just got bleeped on "The Factor." She used a coarse euphemism for boobs.
April 25, 2008, 8:38:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike Chimeri
Or synonym.
Also, a commenter to Margaret Hoover's blog posting on conservative feminism claimed Marc Rudov is merely a satirist. Anyone buying that?
April 25, 2008, 8:39:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply

I love the Huffington Post piece from Rachael Sklar who is having the usual trumped-up vapors over some sort of insensitivity (Read the link for the particulars.)
This time it's about Keith Olbermann using violent imagery towards HRC. (BTW, if she's so strong and independent, why does speech about her have to be cordoned off with more velvet ropes than a movie premier?)
I digress... I think the piece is interesting because of the response it invoked from an MSNBC spokesperson.  
This spokesperson makes some sort of excuse for Olbermann involving his use of the generic "he" (there's a Rachael Sklar screed in THAT somewhere...) and then snipes that if Sklar's piece had just been "criticism" she would have called first and gotten a statement. This implies that Sklar's complaint is really just a partisan pro-Hillary shot at Olbermann.
Sklar very nicely thanks the spokesman for replying and adds that Olbermann himself acts similarly in his Worst Person In the World segments where no clarification or comment is sought beforehand.  
Good point, girl friend! By MSNBC's logic, Keith Olbermann is the Sam Giancana of television news!
April 25, 2008, 8:44:52 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Hey, here's an update! Johnny, Tom Maguire at justoneminute.com has a piece about the Sklar piece... and.... Olbermann apologizing! :D
April 25, 2008, 9:06:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
The "apology" appears below the Sklar article as an update. Oh and he made an onair apology tonight too. Not for Rachel Maddow's lies about Fox, but for hurting HuffPo's feelings. See OlbyWatch for details.
April 25, 2008, 9:23:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike Chimeri
I loved this line: "Bear bruised the feelings of one of his Blue Blog Sources: HuffPo." I can envision you saying that in a pouty voice and expression.
April 25, 2008, 9:56:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike Chimeri
But I'd like to get back to Marc Rudov. Does anyone buy that Hoover blog commenter that said Marc's merely a satirist and not really a misogynist that'll bash women at every opportunity? He actually made some pretty good points tonight regarding plastic surgery and Margaret agreed. That's why she used the t-word; she was so frustrated by women that are so vain they want plastic surgery.
April 25, 2008, 9:59:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I think it's possible he's putting it on a bit thick as part of his shtick. Ann Coulter has made a career out of being deliberately outrageous. To me it doesn't matter either way with Rudov because I'm just not a fan.
April 25, 2008, 10:12:11 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Margaret is not as innocent as she tries to come across as being......
April 25, 2008, 11:04:27 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Johnny, there is a piece over at NB taking KO Maddow to task re Rush Limbaugh.:
"Olbermann Nostalgic for Days Rush Could Be Hanged"
April 25, 2008, 11:13:22 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Rudov did have some good points tonight on the Factor, but he was still...eh...you know.
Frankly, Rudov sounds gay.
April 25, 2008, 11:28:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Vince P
I have to laugh at these people getting on Rush's case.
The Leftists themselves have hinted they want to riot.. thus Recreate 68.
These loons (Olby, etc) are going to attack Rush as if the Leftists are going to be tricked into rioting by him? It's laughable.
April 25, 2008, 11:43:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply

They probably do sincerely believe that, Vince, based on their projection that consevatives are zombies carrying out Rush and Fox's orders every day.
I wasn't listening closely but I did hear the segment and Lisa acted as if she were the host and in charge and nobody was going to take the microphone from her, by golly. I do believe that it was this segment that I heard Rush say that Snerdly picked who he thought would do best on the air b/c they were inundated with seminar callers on the subject.
I share your disappointment about Luci. I thought that he had been acting like a big boy and would be out of his training pants any day and then he went and blew it.
April 26, 2008, 12:04:38 AM EDT – Like – Reply