Chuck Todd makes no sense

Is it me or Chuck Todd from MSNBC is very confused?

A little background:

Media Matters posted a list of suggestions, or "do's and dont's" yesterday for the CNN moderators of today's Dem. debate.

In this "do's and dont's" list, Media Matters warned these moderators not to lie or be misleading about Obama, Edwards and Hillary Clinton.

But Chuck Todd somehow interpreted these "dont's" as attacks against Obama and Edwards, even though they are pro-Obama and pro-Edwards, as well as pro-Clinton. In a blog post for MSNBC, Todd argued that based on these "attacks" against Edwards and Obama that look like they came from the RNC, Media Matters has a Hillary bias.

It looks like Todd is still hurt by the July 5th, 2007 story by MMFA exposing Todd as a dumb analyst who in 2006 predicted that if Nancy Pelosi became speaker of the House in November, George W. Bush's approval would go up to 50% or more by July 4th, 2007.

I think Todd has been trying to find an opportunity to get back at Media Matters, but his timing as awful.

Someone help me make sense of his blog post, because I can't.

More on this:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711160001?f=h_latest

I've noticed that about Media Matters for a while. They clearly have an agenda to support Hillary. And I don't even like Chuck Todd.

If he's on target then he was right about MMFA attacking Obama and Edwards in their list of "dont's" for CNN debate moderators. What are those attacks?

diguised as helpful hints. What journalist has ever said this to Obama, why would someone need to give this "tip" to CNN. What does it do except smear Obama?

"Don't say that Obama's position on Pakistan is "very much in line with what" President Bush says regarding Pakistan."

You wonder what journalist has ever said those things about Obama, bot Mediamatters links to stories about the journalists who said them, when they said it and what they exactly said. In these links Mediamatters criticizes these false and misleading allegations against Edwards and Obama.

-Mediamatters linked to the time that they debunked the myth that Obama and Bush have the same strategy for Pakistan
-Mediamatters linked to the time they debunked the allegation that Obama was cashing in on stocks in which he acutally lost money.
-Mediamatters linked to the time they argued against writing silly stories about haircuts.

So, is it hydro? Or mushrooms?

so CNN didn't have to.

When absolutely nothing changes by 2010, don't say you weren't warned.

Or did you forget that the links provided by Mediamatters are of stories MMFA wrote against these false allegations against Obama , Edwards and Clinton?