1/6/09 12:39 PM

Monday Links & Open Thread

Latest cable news links [updated through the day]:

CNBC's Bear Stearns hatchet job?

Video: Baghdad after dark.

New Factor ad. John Kasich subs tonight.

Rachel Sklar: Do it live!

Numbers game: NY Times vs LA Times. Friday's numbers.

Glick's big interview. The business ratings business.

Hot & Not.

AP: politics propels MSNBC? Babbin: the war within.

Geraldo's cadaver controversy results in regrets.

Tonight's Olbermann comment pre-emptively debunked? Preview.

Zucker's genius move.

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




olby sucks
Just had an intersting thought after reading another great piece on Olbermann and his dimwitted plans.  
 
How is he going to spin te Dean angle in his 10 minute spit fest?  
 
At what point does obama have to disown Olbermann?
June 30, 2008, 1:29:32 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
I would have never expected THAT from a site related to firedoglake. Firedoglake is a far-out whackjob site in every link I've seen to it until now.
June 30, 2008, 7:07:30 AM EDT – Like – Reply


tess
I remember during the Bush Kerry elections Fox also had all these stories on voter fraud. After the Bush win, they laid off the voter fraud stories. If Obama should win the election, its a sure bet they wont stop reporting voter fraud.
June 30, 2008, 7:29:14 AM EDT – Like – Reply


On The Mark
I think you hit upon a concern we all ought to have about the news media, Fox Fan: in this effort to cast every conceivable issue as liberal or conservative, the media glosses over the complexity of our national dialogue. FISA and telecommunications immunity are excellent examples. We have had the FISA court, for better or worse for years. The media never really covered the court, because there was no news. Proceedings are secret. I hazard to guess 75% or more of all Americans did not even know the court existed.
 
When institutionalized fear became a part of national policy in 2002, the Bush Administration decided it didn't even need to go to FISA. Then, when the issue was not FISA, but the Administration deciding it needed no warrants to wiretap, we hear about FISA. But how? In the context of conservatives (supporting warrantless wiretaps) and liberals (opposed to warrantless wiretaps, and by the way, to the idea of secret courts). But, that didn't characterize the debate at all. The debate was the Administration and its supporters (which at that time included some Democrats) v. those opposed to warrantless wiretaps (which included a number of conservatives). The issue was complex, and it was nuanced. Broadcast news doesn't devote time to complexity and nuance. Cable news has the time, but not the inclination. Interviewing Natalie Holloway's mother is much easier and less boring for a key demographic.
 
The same thing applied to telecommunication company complicity with the Administration. I called and wrote my company, received a glib and baseless assurance my privacy was being protected, but "We can't discuss this matter because of 'national security'." My son of a Bircher neighbor was equally concerned, and got the same response. So, we have a mainstream liberal and far out right wing whacko taking essentially the same position. How does the media cover it all? To FNC, liberals were throwing national security out the window, and to MSNBC, conservatives were shredding the Constitution to prop up the Bush Administration. Easy. Simple. Anyone can understand. Inaccurate to the core.
 
What I saw you doing, Fox Fan, projecting these classes upon the broader media, thankfully breaks down. Firedoglake has a rather quirky notion of the First Amendment that appeals to both liberals and conservatives, topically. To those who so gleefully predict the end of print media (and I am not including you here, FF), I suggest holding back. The weaknesses of broadcast and cable news are obvious. Blogs tend toward the radical and the devisive. Fairness and balance, to the extent it can be found at all, is in print.
 
---
 
Excellent point, Tess.
June 30, 2008, 8:21:35 AM EDT – Like – Reply


notveryhow
Just a fly-by before we take off for raspberry picking (already have ice cream and a pie,now we need fixin's for jam).
 
The strength of cable (and broadcast) news is it's immediacy.It's weakness is a lack of depth,and a propensity to report on the horserace and not the horses or track.
 
I fear the weakening of print media.That is where the depth of information is available for the public to make decisions.Most people can read much faster than anyone can speak.
 
The internet as a primary news source is troubling.With a bit of poking around,information supporting ANY viewpoint can be found.How does one discern what is credible if they don't have a grounding on the issues from other sources.
 
And I may be wrong on this point,but I find it difficult to read thousands of words on a screen,the kind of volume of information one would find in a good newspaper doing in-depth coverage.Seems to me the internet may have the same strengths and weaknesses as cable news.
June 30, 2008, 8:49:45 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> After the Bush win, they laid off the voter fraud stories.
> Excellent point, Tess.
 
And a steaming pile of crap. I don't like it when people make up stuff, so perhaps Tess will give us her basis for saying Fox "laid off" voter fraud stories since Bush won.
June 30, 2008, 9:28:19 AM EDT – Like – Reply


tess
My goodness I am not making it up, they had all these stories of voter fraud and right after the election not a peep. Why do you say this a steaming pile of crap? I watched Fox and after Bush won the election the stories stopped. I did not think anyone would accuse me of making stuff up.
June 30, 2008, 10:10:29 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> right after the election not a peep.
 
Repeating a lie does not make it true. Please back it up.
June 30, 2008, 10:15:12 AM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
The same thing applied to telecommunication company complicity with the Administration. I called and wrote my company,
 
by dqr
 
Something to hide?
June 30, 2008, 10:30:10 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> I did not think anyone would accuse me of making stuff up.
 
Oh please. Take responsibility for your own words. You tell me how it could be that there were no fraud stories after the Bush win when in just two minutes I was able to find a bunch of them. Like these from 2006:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JESZiLpBLE
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kegJMoBJO9I
 
Now you say there hasn't been a peep since Bush won. By an amazing coincidence, the newsliars just made the same claim. And yet there are all these voter fraud stories that were covered after Bush won.
 
Now, you tell me why I might come to the conclusion that you are making up your "facts". If you are honest, you will admit that you were wrong, that perhaps you believed someone else's lies. But at least now you know why I called your 'not a peep' claim a steaming pile of crap. And that goes for the newsliars claim that voter fraud stories 'disappeared' after the election only to return now. That's more than a pile of crap, actually. It's Another Hound Lie. And I guess I can thank you for encouraging me to expose it.
June 30, 2008, 10:38:44 AM EDT – Like – Reply


tess
Exactly those stories are from 2006 right before the midterm elections. I am talking about right after Bush won. Not two years later. But I guess Fox was pushing those stories right before the midterm elections because they knew what was coming.
June 30, 2008, 10:55:25 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> I am talking about right after Bush won.
 
Is that what you want to claim now? Then fine. Let's have your proof that there were no voter fraud stories on Fox after Bush won.
June 30, 2008, 11:08:17 AM EDT – Like – Reply


tess
Its not what I am claiming now. Thats what I meant. Election fraud, Bush wins, no more fraud. How can I prove it. My recollection was saying to myself what happen to the stories. This was in 2004.
June 30, 2008, 11:33:25 AM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
Oy.
June 30, 2008, 11:43:04 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> My recollection was saying to myself what happen to the stories.
 
Your recollection? You watched Fox religiously? Asman? Scott? Skinner? Schneider? All the news anchors?
 
> How can I prove it.
 
You can't.
June 30, 2008, 11:45:10 AM EDT – Like – Reply


On The Mark
Johnny:
 
I think you are being unduly harsh. I understood Tess to be saying right after Bush won election. Perhaps, that was an inference, but it seemed the logical inference to me. And, at that time, there were a barrage of stories. A cynic might suggest that FNC, then far more in the Bush/Republican camp than it is now, was preparing for the possibility of Gore winning and was harvesting four (4) years of fodder to whine and moan the election was stolen. A less cynical person might say that once the Supreme Court appointed Bush, the stories simply ceased to be relevant or of interest. One who always wished to paint FNC in the rosiest possible light might since once Bush was appointed, FNC wanted to be a good sport, a good winner, and the stories only added salt to the wounds, that the nation needed to unite, so why dwell on these stories.
At the moment, I am trying to be kind enough to go with the middle ground.
 
You will recall the stories were of two (2) general sorts:
 
That in a number of states which outlaw felons from voting, particularly Florida (Ding! Ding! Ding!) felons, in fact, voted. This was a hot topic on FNC, and elsewhere. You will also recall that when the heat died down, we learned that the opposite had happened. That a hugely disproportionate number of African American voters were presumed to be felons and were purged from the rolls.
 
That in Florida (Ding! Ding! Ding!) a number of elderly voters had registered in Florida without cancelling registrations in other states. This, too, was a big story, but less than the bogus felon story.
 
That in a number of states including Florida (Ding! DIng! Ding!), California and New Mexico (Ding! Ding! Ding!) Hispanic immigrants, legal, but not citizens and illegal were bused to the polls to vote. FNC was all over this, as were other networks, to a far lesser extent. FNC resurrected the unfortunate Robert K. Dornan to discuss how he had been robbed of his seat in an earlier election by Loretta Sanchez bringing scores of non-citizens in to vote. You will also recall, that this very allegation was a key element in the US Attorney massacre because several of the US Attorneys could not find sufficient evidence to support the RNC/FNC claim, to which the RNC tenaciously clung and FNC had already cast aside.
 
I think Tess's recollection is correct, and she made an able argument. If you want to retort that her view is colored by some half-baked dislike of FNC, maybe so. I don't know Tess, and I can't question her motives.
 
---
 
No, Royal King, nothing to hide, just vigilant in protecting Constitutional rights and wanting the government to know as little about my personal life as it damn well has to. That is a Quixote-like effort with this Administration, as we all know. I wish I could count on the press/media to be vigilant, as well.
June 30, 2008, 11:51:11 AM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
once Bush was appointed,
 
by dqr
 
Did you get passed 2nd grade, teach?
June 30, 2008, 11:53:26 AM EDT – Like – Reply


On The Mark
Now, Tess is on shakier ground. Voter fraud claims were a relatively insignficant part of 2004. Just a few of the n'er do wells who always whine and moan about such matters and try to suppress turn-out (Black churches! Busloads of Black felons/Hispancis/auto registration, etc.) Ohio was often discussed as a prime voter fraud state in 2004, claims that seem to have been substaniated when the voters turned out so many of the scoundrels, in (perhaps, small) part for this very reason. I do recall, when other networks were still talking about this, not very long, admittedly, Hume was his typically arrogant, dismissive self.
June 30, 2008, 11:57:11 AM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
No, Royal King, nothing to hide, just vigilant in protecting Constitutional rights
 
by dqr
 
Where was your outrage when the 4 slimeballs tried taking away our guns last week? Not a peep from you.
June 30, 2008, 11:57:14 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
> I think Tess's recollection is correct, and she made an able argument.
 
I know Tess's "recollection" is incorrect, and the only argument she made is to repeat that it's how she remembers it. Of course to remember something you have to have seen it in the first place, and even that is open to doubt. Sorry, but it doesn't pass my smell test, but we allow even unbelievable arguments here.
June 30, 2008, 11:58:38 AM EDT – Like – Reply


notveryhow
Geraldo/Fox exploiting video of a supermodels dead body.Is this real? Is this a first?
 
I remember Geraldo in Al Capone's vault.Maybe that's what he hoped he'd find.I haven't cared for the man since Kurt Vonnegut put out a fatwa,so it's about what I'd expect.
June 30, 2008, 12:33:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply


notveryhow
I can't speak to what Fox was doing during the Fla recount,since I didn't watch.But if they were playing follow the leader with talk radio, RW pundits,and the RNC,then their audience would have heard about bussing homeless from poll to poll in Wisconson,the ubiquitous felons in Fla. and even a claim that the Daly machine in Chicago stole the election from Nixon.I would have expected multiple felony charges shortly after the elections,but they never came to pass.Hmmm.
 
Though I would be hard pressed to PROVE this.It's just what I saw and remember.If you don't remember this,than don't believe me.I'm not going to dig through the stacks looking for transcripts of Rush,Robert Novak,our local Gary Sutton, and GOP e-mails (well,those are probably gone).
June 30, 2008, 12:47:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Well your msg skirts on the edges of off-topic irrelevancy, since you admit that what you say you recall was all about everything except cable news. But thanks for contributing.
June 30, 2008, 12:55:28 PM EDT – Like – Reply


On The Mark
As I said, Tess' recollection of FNC demeanor is indisputably correct if we are talking about 2000, highly suspect if we are talking about 2004 and well of base if we are talking about 2006. I read Tess' original post as implying 2000, and it looks as if might be assuming something which is incorrect.
 
At any rate, based upon my review of 2000 coverage, I think we are all on safe ground concluding that FNC has made some great strides in becoming fair and balanced from its 2000 position.
 
Where I think FNC is missing out now is not by being in the RNC tank once again, which it is not, but in what the Chickaboomer/Reed piece says about the creativity of CNN and MSNBC in its presenation of election coverage. Both have strong, energetic panels and vivid, easily understandable graphics. FNC is, on one hand, stuck with the same basic deadpan commentators and cluttered graphic images and on the other hand with the garish sets used on the Smith side pieces. It's just not working.
 
---
 
As for Geraldo, there is nothing to add. Trash, pure and simple.
June 30, 2008, 1:07:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply


On The Mark
I know, Mr. Suck, you can't make a cogent argument, but how dare you, how very dare you, refer to justices on the Supreme Court as slimeballs. They are anything but that. And, you show a profound, profound lack of respect for our nation, for our Constitution, when you do something of this sort. That is far, far too often. I don't agree with the majority opinion to be sure, but I respect the opinion, the members, the Court and the rule of law. I tend to think that the gun ruling was simply an example of Scalia right-wing judicial activisim, the same type of activism that brought about Bush's appointment, and the same type of activism that brought about the decision in Roe v. Wade. Judicial activism always raises difficult and troubling issues, but to attack our nation's institutions in this way. Why don't you just take the flag and use it as toilet paper? What an outrageous and disgusting thing for you to have said!
June 30, 2008, 1:12:56 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
A pre-emptive warning not to go off on a tangent of discussing the Supreme Court etc.
June 30, 2008, 1:14:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ImNotBlue
Tess and OTM, are you serious? What about the 2006 election, when the rest of the MSM was gearing up for stories about voter fraud. They played them every night BEFORE the election... but suddenly stopped them right after the results came in.
 
If I remember correctly, and J$ would be best to check with on this one, I believe that Olbermann himself did a few stories before the election about potential voter fraud... but of course, all that stopped once "his guys" got elected.
 
If you're going to claim that FNC is responsible for doing this... you're also going to have to attack the rest of the media as well.
June 30, 2008, 1:17:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
Ain't gonna happen, INB.
June 30, 2008, 1:20:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply


On The Mark
The subject matter, I'm Not Blue, was FNC's coverage, and I tried to stick to that topic. I don't dispute, and I agree with your analysis of the pre-emptive strike, particularly by MSNBC, and it disgusted me then. It disgust me now.
 
Are you arguing that FNC's abhorrent journalism is excused by FNC's abhorrent journalism? I'm sure you're not, however, if you were, I'd take the strongest excpetion to that argument.
 
To repeat for the not-so-bright among us: I agree with your assessment of the 2006 election.
June 30, 2008, 1:37:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
"the same type of activism that brought about Bush's appointment"
 
Wow OTM, I thought you had better sense than that. I know MSNBC used the "appointment" term, and has allowed its broadcasts to be used by Bush Haters to refer to him as the President-Select, but it ain't the case.
 
The US Supreme Court ruled on two items, one was that the SCOFLA did not have the right to force the state to continue the recounting AFTER the legally scheduled cut-off date. The other was the SCOFLA did not have have the right to change the methods used to count the votes while the recount was underway.
 
The problem with "appoint" is that if you take the Supreme court out of the equation, Bush still would have won. The eventual recount sponsored by all of the newspapers and monitored by Jesse Jackson showed that in every scenario except one, Bush won.  
 
This whole appointment thing is childish. The USSC appointed no one. Don't believe me, here's what the NY Times said:
 
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDB1338F931A25752C1A9679C8B63
 
Note the part that reads "...the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush..."
June 30, 2008, 1:38:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ImNotBlue
Well, as long as you recognize the problem in both situations, that's a positive.
 
However, if all the networks are doing it across the board... I don't know how you can claim it's part of some sort of FNC "right-wing" bias.
June 30, 2008, 2:35:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply


danny
Ashley,
 
Thanks for the link. I copied it in my notebook.
 
Yesterday, I was in a Motel room, and I got to hear more of Fox News than ususl. I heard Juan Williams complain about the gun control ruling. However, Juan was correct in the way that he characterized the ruling just as OTM was woefully incorrect.
 
He indicated that he thought that the court was not recognizing the Consitution as a living document. He bewailed the fact that the courts were not activist enough, and were not recognizing the fact that times had changed since the words of the Constitution were written.
 
So Juan characterized the decision as (in effect) originalist decision (albeit too originalist in his view); whereas OTM characterizes the gin control ruling as activist.
 
When a person is filled with as many misconceptions as OTM, it is easy to see how he can think that a news organization is shoddy because they do not regurgitate OTM's beliefs . . . when, in fact, it is OTM's beliefs that are faulty and not the reporting of the news organization.
June 30, 2008, 2:42:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply


danny
gin control = gun control
June 30, 2008, 2:43:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply


On The Mark
How wonderfully glib, Danny.
 
In a post yesterday, I spoke of Hume falling back on old NRA canards. I could have also spoken of Williams fumbling around with the concepts of activism and original intent as if he had just read of them in the taxi to the studio. In fact, all of those panel members, with the possible exception of Liasson, should have never been discussing the Supreme Court in some authoritative manner. The topic is obviously well-outside of the members' understanding.  
 
Activism may be precipitated by a social or political understanding that is new, but activism itself is the artificial change in the understanding of the law, a departure from what was believed to be the framers' intent. This was indisputably an activist decision, as such.
 
As for Bush/Gore, the abomination occurred not because of the decision reached, but because the Court did not decline to consider the case as it involved: (a) a purely political issue and (b) a question purely of state law. The Court should have declined to consider. Far wiser minds than ours have rather persuasively established the Court should have declined consideration. Florida would have ultimately resolved this, but states' rights seems to have ceased being a conservative concern.
 
The result was the appointment of Bush, since, to my knowledge, we do not select presidents by editorial findings.
 
The problem here is that we have a group of commentators to whom a very small number of Americans, but still far too many ascribe ultimate wisdom and purity of purpose, a tawdry and dangerous form of hero worship. As Ashley and Danny illustrate, they are not to be questioned. Yet, these same commentators knew not of what they spoke.
 
I hear, endlessly, that a small number of people ascribe similar wisdom and purity to Olbermann, and worship him, although I have yet to be presented with any evidence of this. Should this be true, it is every bit as unfortunate and dangerous as people believing anything and everything said on FNC (or NPR or PBS or the Comedy Channel, etc.). It's always been my observation that conservatives always look for parade to come by so they can join in and mimic the drum major. Less so more free-thinking, perhaps more cynical liberals. But, that is admittedly a subjective observation.
June 30, 2008, 3:45:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
If anyone is interested:
 
www.onthemark.com
June 30, 2008, 4:03:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply


danny
This was indisputably an activist decision, as such.
 
THE HELL it is INDISPUTABLY an activist decision. In fact, if anything, it is the other way around. As Juan pointed out, in making their decision, the originalist judges on the Supreme Court not only looked at the language in the Constitution, but they looked at other papers and documents that threw light on what the framers of the Constitution intended when they wrote (and voted on) that passage. The intent off the framers was the over riding concern and not how they could twist the Constitution to fit today's needs.
 
You can disagree with the decision, as Juan did, and that's your right,. But, to say that they were activist in their interpretation and not originalist is a stupid argument to make and it ignores the obvious.
 
You have just now illustrated what I was talking about. How you repeatedly judge Fox by that standard of your woeful ignorance, and find them wanting.  
 
You have just demonstrated in your last post that you know very little about the Constitution or schools of interpretation of the same.
 
It was not the panel that was unauthoritative. They knew what they were talking about. You absolutely don't.
June 30, 2008, 4:21:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply


On The Mark
I suppose when one can't make a sound argument, one mocks and ridicules. I'll simply take both as a sign of the inherent superiority of my argument and sincerely thank you for your engagement.
June 30, 2008, 4:30:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
OTM - your argument can be described as many things, but being inherently superior is not one of them.
 
The otm.com link may once have been been deemed as mocking you, but now it seems downright prophetic.
June 30, 2008, 4:39:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply


notveryhow
Ashley | 06.30.08 - 4:08 pm |
Ashley | 06.30.08 - 4:44 pm |
 
Wow.If those were not ad hominen attacks,they must have changed the definition.
June 30, 2008, 4:44:07 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
Not at all NVM, some of his comments about me and others have been pretentious. That is fact. Then to proclaim his view to be inherently superior to mine, well implying he is pretentious is actually quite understated.
June 30, 2008, 4:51:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
"In fact, all of those panel members, with the possible exception of Liasson, should have never been discussing the Supreme Court in some authoritative manner. The topic is obviously well-outside of the members' understanding. "
On The Mark | 06.30.08 - 3:50 pm | #  
 
Interesting, OTM says it's a FACT that these commentators do not know enough to discuss the Supreme Court in an authoritative manner. Yet he has no trouble going on to discuss the Supreme Court in an authoritative manner.  
 
That is pretentious. It's also an example of describing his opinion as a fact.
June 30, 2008, 4:57:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply


notveryhow
With apologies to Mr With apologies to Mr $ "One of the most common non-rational appeals is an argumentum ad hominem--or, as the Latin phrase suggests, an "argument against the person" (and not against the ideas he or she is presenting)." It is irrelavent whether OTM is pretentious or not.To reply to his argument by saying he is pretentious,rather than replying to the substance of his argument, fits the definition of "ad hominen attack.nbsp;
 
"One of the most common non-rational appeals is an argumentum ad hominem--or, as the Latin phrase suggests, an "argument against the person" (and not against the ideas he or she is presenting)."  
 
It is irrelavent whether OTM is pretentious or not.To reply to his argument by saying he is pretentious,rather than replying to the substance of his argument, fits the definition of "ad hominen attack.
June 30, 2008, 4:57:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply


danny
I know, Mr. Suck, you can't make a cogent argument,
 
That statement you made to OTM was personal. It was mocking and involved ridicule. Soo, by you logic, I guess we can say that it is an indisputable truth that you have acknowledge the superiority of OS's argument.
 
Actually, I totally nuked your argument with facts and logic. There is absolutely no response you can make except to counter with some self pitying whining nonsense. I never attacked you, I only attacked your arguments.  
 
That is totally unlike what you did with OS and it is unlike personal attacks you did in the past, which helped to get you uninvited from the OW site.(according to Johnny)
 
The fact that you can only reply to me with some hypocritical, self-righteous, self pitying whining nonsense is an acknowledgment of the superiority of MY argument. I thank you for that.
 
I would also suggest to you that should you decide to post in the future, try to pick a subject where you have a least a thimble full of knowledge.
June 30, 2008, 5:01:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
NVH - you are incorrect. I did not reply to his argument by saying he is pretentious. I replied to his argument by pointing out historical facts. He replied to my argument by making a false claim about me. I responded to his false claim about me with the OTM link.
June 30, 2008, 5:05:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
The topic is obviously well-outside of the members' understanding.  
 
by otm
 
Oh, the irony.
June 30, 2008, 5:05:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply


On The Mark
If I were to say a warthog could make a superior argument to Mr. Sucks, I do believe I might be using sarcasm or humor, which is what I thought I did, but listen, I hope your evening is better than you afternoon.
June 30, 2008, 5:07:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply


danny
OS
See more ridicule and personal attacks toward you. By OTM's logic you must have really dominated him,
 
Congratulations
June 30, 2008, 5:09:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
She was boxed all over OW. Now, she's being boxed all over here, too. She's tried changing her name countless times to no avail. LOL!
June 30, 2008, 5:12:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
How bout that wesley clark! How long before obama disowns him? Will olbermann be adding an apology/explanation in for clark, tonight?
June 30, 2008, 5:14:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
OS - I doubt Olberman will even mention Wesley Clark. I don't believe he would ever do anything that could shine a negative light on BO.
June 30, 2008, 5:17:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Guest
Testing...Testing
June 30, 2008, 5:30:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
Correction to my 5:22 post.
 
Olberman may very well mention Wesley Clark in his WPITW rant. KO might list someone who attacked Clark today as the worst person in the world, afterall how DARE anyone question the word of a decorated vet. Of course KO wouldn't say why the WPITW attacked Clark in the first place.
June 30, 2008, 5:31:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply


HaggisFarmer
Anonymous | 06.30.08 - 5:35 pm |
Damn...It's me 
 
J$ am I aloud out the corner yet?
June 30, 2008, 5:32:04 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
Did I read the Olberman story correct? He's moving forward with a $10 million lawsuit. Is KO really suing for $10 million because a newspaper may have falsely claimed that KO was angry because there were no Ketchup packages? Or is he suing because a newspaper may have falsely claimed that KO was demanding the MTP job?
 
That's worth $10 Million?
 
Perhaps taxpayers should organize and sue him for not paying his taxes.
June 30, 2008, 5:38:46 PM EDT – Like – Reply


HaggisFarmer
That new programme "Just In" can't under any circumstances be described as "fair and balanced"...Admittedly I only lasted for the 1st 10mins....Also someone should teach Laura how to read an autocue...Her head moves all over the place....I began to feel quite queasy.
June 30, 2008, 5:45:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ImNotBlue
No, Ashley, I don't think you read that one correctly. I'm assuming you're talking about what Spud said over at ICN.
 
It's not Olbermann who is suing Page 6... it someone else, for an unrelated "offense."
 
Here's a link:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0626082opie1.html
 
I thought the same thing when I saw it... but no, that's not the case.
June 30, 2008, 5:47:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ImNotBlue
Haggis, you made your decision about the show after 10 minutes?
 
That's interesting... I read the first page of a book the other day... it didn't interest me, so I posted a bad review of the book on Amazon. Sure I only read a page... but that's enough to judge the whole book by, right?
June 30, 2008, 5:49:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
RE: Just in
 
Leo Terrell is on now. Laura vs. Leo, right vs. left, repub vs. dem.
 
Did Terrell just say twice, that Laura was White-Wing? Did he mis-pronounce Right Wing or did I hear it incorrectly?
June 30, 2008, 5:52:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
ImNotBlue | 06.30.08 - 5:52 pm | #
 
Yes, you are right. Thanks for the link.
 
I do feel bad for KO though, if he really didn't get his ketchup. Perhaps a Mail a Ketchup Package to KO campaign could ease his pain.
June 30, 2008, 5:55:41 PM EDT – Like – Reply


HaggisFarmer
Looks like Fox are up to their old editing tricks once again....Henneberg has deceived the viewers by taking Wesley Clark's quote out of context.
 
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806300001?f=h_top
June 30, 2008, 6:07:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
Media Matters has a great deal of experience taking a quote out of context.
 
Sure, evil Fox deceptively portrayed Clarks comments as the opposite of what it was, a tribute to John McCains service. Har.
 
In any context, referring to Sen McCain as "riding in a plane" when he was the pilot was WC's way to attack McCain, minimizing his life experience.
 
WC may really be a WC.
June 30, 2008, 6:37:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Since Media Matters hammered CNN and MSNBC over their "misleading" coverage of the Clark comments, it appears everyone got it wrong except Media Matters. Of course only the piece attacking Fox got mentioned here; the others were ignored. The reason for that is, of course, obvious.
June 30, 2008, 6:40:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Ashley
Regarding MM, they are being dishonest when they claim Hennebery "deceptively" cropped the interview.
 
From MM
 
"On the June 29 edition of Fox News' The Strategy Room, news correspondent Molly Henneberg asserted that "the McCain campaign is returning fire after [Sen. Barack] Obama supporter General Wesley Clark seemed to attack [Sen. John] McCain's military service." 
 
That is correct. WC did seem to be attacking JM's military service.
 
"Hnneberg then stated, "Here is part of what Clark said about McCain today," 
 
Note she said "part of".
 
Was Henneberg requiired to show the entire interview to satisfy MM?
 
Did she take quotes rebroadcasting them out of order?
 
Did she fail to insert a video equivelant of the Maureen Dowd "..."
 
I watched the entire interview and I agree with Henneberg, Clark did absolutely seem to attack McCain's service. In fact, I believe he did attack McCain's service.
 
MM is all wet on this one.
June 30, 2008, 6:48:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
In fact, I believe he did attack McCain's service.
 
MM is all wet on this one.
Ashley | 06.30.08 - 6:53 pm | # 
 
Of course, he did. He committed political suicide. Couldn't have happened to a nicer person. He killed how many innocent people? Say byby to the vp chance, clrky boy!
June 30, 2008, 7:18:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
Did Terrell just say twice, that Laura was White-Wing? Did he mis-pronounce Right Wing or did I hear it incorrectly?
Ashley | 06.30.08 - 5:57 pm | # 
 
Since leo is a racist, I would guess you heard right, Ashley.
June 30, 2008, 7:36:32 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Aeris Gainsborough
Good, O'Reilly will have a sub tonight, and this is good because:
 
1. No Pinheads and Patriots (one of the only reasons why I watch O'Reilly, the other is Policing The Net)
 
2. I get to watch Keith Olbermann all the way
 
3. Special Comment, tonight
 
Whew!!!
June 30, 2008, 7:44:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply


ImNotBlue
I do feel bad for KO though, if he really didn't get his ketchup. Perhaps a Mail a Ketchup Package to KO campaign could ease his pain.
Ashley | 06.30.08 - 6:00 pm | #
 
THAT IS SO F***ING BRILLIANT, I WISH I COULD GIVE YOU AN AWARD!
 
J$... you HAVE to get on this! OlbermannWatch NEEDS to do this... it would be terrific!
June 30, 2008, 7:53:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply


cee
I think SNObamessiah condemning Clark's comments is proof enough that the comments were degrading of McCain's service....case closed....move on leftist crazies.
June 30, 2008, 8:01:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply


cee
"As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark," Obama spokesman Bill Burton says in a statement.
 
Move on, little doggies, move on.......
 
MEDIA MATTERS (and the rest of the anti-American radical left) just can't seem to get on SNOBamessiah's current script of running to the right and at least appear like one is a patriotic citizen!
 
VERO POSSUMUS!
 
http://tinyurl.com/5e8taq
June 30, 2008, 8:32:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
HaggisFarmer | 06.30.08 - 6:12 pm | #
 
Way to drive-by comment and ignore the responses, Haggis. 
 
-----------------------
 
Ashley, it's good to see a fresh face here. Your comments the last few days have been most welcome (by most of the posters, at least). OTM is a great commenter if you respectfully disagree; go to the gutter and he will gleefully oblige. I like to think the same could be said of most people.
June 30, 2008, 8:46:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
HaggisFarmer | 06.30.08 - 6:12 pm | #
 
Way to drive-by comment and ignore the responses, Haggis. 
 
>
 
He's very busy posting under several names at the newshounds.
June 30, 2008, 9:38:20 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
Fox Fan, otm's commets that aren't "in the gutter" are nothing more than an act. She doesn't have to be taken to the gutter, it's where she thrives. She hates Fox, conservatism and anyone who associates with it.
 
Ok, how bad did Olbermann embarass himself, tonight?
June 30, 2008, 9:47:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
Really. Are you engaged in any of the conversations? Linky if so.
June 30, 2008, 9:48:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
My 9:53 responds to your 9:43.
 
I actually watched Olby on and off tonight for the first time in literally years. Aeris' comment above prompted me to check it out since Kasich was hosting for O'Reilly. 
 
It was spectacularly awful. Maybe I will start watching and commenting at OW. Unbelievable.
June 30, 2008, 9:50:42 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
I can't post there...
June 30, 2008, 9:50:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
LOL back when I used to post there I was banned scores of times. It's been a couple of years since my mischievous days with the NHs.
June 30, 2008, 9:52:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
Newshounds, that is. I referenced ow and jd's place and I was 86'ed, permanently. Such nice folks.
June 30, 2008, 9:52:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply


olby sucks
I wish I cold get back in, somehow.
June 30, 2008, 9:54:09 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
In this case, a wish in one hand will fill up faster than sh***** in the other. If you really wanted to, that is.
June 30, 2008, 9:55:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
For those not in the know, my last comment references a CLASSIC movie:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_bx6B3dBMM
June 30, 2008, 10:00:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply