The David Shuster Lesson (Mary Lyon)

Mary Lyon, From The Left -- World News Trust

After years of drought, this is an historic election year. If ever there was a time to want to get into the game, 2008 is it. And David Shuster has to be kicking himself in his own head. Loose lips sure do sink ships, and sometimes at the most inconvenient moments.

This particular week's voting, the so-called "Potomac Primaries," is extremely significant. Obama's sweep of Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, may have been the unofficial clincher on the Democratic side. There are still many states remaining on the primary schedule, most noteably Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, but Obama's momentum at this point may be unbeatable.

He hasn't just won, he's won with significant margins of votes. He may have reached the state of unstoppability.

There's every likelihood from here on that he'll run the table, as demographic group after demographic group -- unions, white men, blacks, many women, incomes 50-plus, incomes 50-minus, disgruntled Republicans and independents -- scrambles onto Barack's bandwagon. It's not over for Hillary Clinton, but the path ahead for her is steep and bumpy at best. Same thing for the hapless John McCain who is wooing his own people with so-so results. He carried all three states, also, even if many Republicans held their noses as they voted for him. Besides, that annoying latter-day Gomer, Mike Huckabee, is digging his heels into his beloved Flat Earth and refusing to be a good little boy and give up and go home.

For any political junkie, THIS is The Year of Years. Just a really awful time to get benched. And so it is for David Shuster.

What strikes me as a sad irony is that David Shuster seems to be taking the fall for Chris Matthews at MSNBC -- and maybe a whole lot of others, too.

more

http://www.worldnewstrust.com/commentary/the-david-shuster-lesson-mary-lyon.html

The American Electorate is not going to blithely "buy-into" such inane spin. :thumbsdown:

Not this time. :(

the Dem candidates will not be taking their shit again?

Mary Lyon, From The Left -- World News Trust


"...I'm sympathetic to Hillary Clinton for the nearly non-stop drubbing she's had to endure - for the better part of two decades. Her voice can't even break for a second-and-a-half without critics piling on, making crying noises, and honking for weeks like constipated geese. For crying out loud! Some people just have this nearly irrational hatred and distrust of her. How deep their insecurity must pierce. How threatened they must be! It's hard for me to understand. It makes me wonder just how shaky the emotional or psychological ground is upon which they stand. How else do you explain it?


I'm certain this column will provoke a lot of flame wars from First Amendment stalwarts - that anybody should be free to say whatever they think and the suppression of free speech includes that very kind of speech you find most offensive. They'll point out that David Shuster is being unfairly disciplined, and for relatively small potatoes. The P.C. Busters I'm sure are up in arms about this, too - heaven forbid we cramp our style about the Clintons - are we really supposed to tiptoe around every mention of them? We can't take potshots if we feel like it, and we're not allowed to aim as far below the belt as we dare? Hey, it's a free country, isn't it?


I support the Freedom of Speech, but it would be refreshing to see that freedom leavened just a little - and through personal self-control. Call it humanity, maybe. We've GOT to be better than this. I'm frankly sick to death of hearing the minute-by-minute drumbeat of negativity and hostility toward all things Clinton. It makes me want to vote for Hillary, just out of spite (even though, in the interest of full disclosure, I punched the card for Barack in the California primary). Yes, Hillary Clinton is a big girl, and nobody forced her to jump into this with both feet. Chelsea, too, is a big girl, no longer a shy teen whose high-profile parents were adamant about protecting her privacy. But even when she was younger, a noncombatant, she was still a target. That "nice" John McCain himself once joked at her expense while her dad was president, about how ugly she was - because Janet Reno was really her father. Cute one, John. Simply adorable. What a big man you certainly must be, picking on a little girl with undignified and repulsive cheap shots like that. What's the matter? Don't have anybody your own size to kick around? McCain eventually found himself swallowing a similar barb when his own little girl, his dark-skinned adopted daughter from Bangladesh, was smeared by rumor-mongering character assassins from the Bush camp as his illegitimate child. Stunningly, he never rose up to express outrage, or file a complaint, or make a stink. I can't wait to hear what the next generation of heartless, ruthless swiftboaters has in store for Barack Obama's two little girls. I'm sure they'll be fair game, too, but it sure seems as though the Clintons suffer the most of it.


http://www.worldnewstrust.com/commentary/the-david-shus...



"Her voice can't even break for a second-and-a-half without critics piling on, making crying noises, and honking for weeks like constipated geese."

Those geese have been flocking here, too.

...RE: the lame$tream media's obsession with trashing her and the drubbing she's taken - there AND here on DU.

It's sad and disgusting. I got no problem with criticism of how she's run her campaign, her record, her votes, her proposed policies - but the sheer hatred people on this site and in the media have tossed towards her is like a nasty infection, green with pus and with a stench that permeates the entire atmosphere. It's pollution.

Much of it here comes from the Obama congregation which makes both DU AND Obama look bad to have such angry and hateful people supporting him. All the while HE touts "hope" and "yes we can" and all that positive stuff.

"YES WE CAN"?! "YES WE CAN" -- WHAT?

BE MORE VENOMOUS AND HATEFUL than the goddamned right-wingnuts themselves?!

YES YOU CAN - fine. We see that. LaDeDa.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

The blindness with which they worship Obama is directly proportional to the hatred they pour onto the Clintons and with which they pummel Hillary.

You can't GET worse on Freak Repube-lick. We've outdone even them here.

It is truly disgusting.

And for the damned RECORD - I am as yet undecided between them. I don't consider either of them a great choice.

What I cannot STAND worse than either of them is what a sewer this place has become between their supporters - but MOST of the crap seems to come from the Church of Obama who take delight in repeating right-wingnut talking points - only with a venom that right-wingnuts only DREAMED about heretofore.

The words "grow up" come to mind.

There have been a lot of things said here that people might regret posting later. Some of the stuff is down right indefensible and amounts to little more than throwing shit on each other and with no other purpose than to throw as much shit as fast as it can be done. In a lot of ways, we're more vicious when talking about own than we are about the people we should be focusing on spotlights on.

I mean, I understand the passion when someone really supports a possible Democratic nominee or candidate. I have passionately defended Al Gore for years. What I cannot understand is why so many people take that same passion and turn it into hatred against another human being. A lot of people act like the media. They pick and choose, take things out of context or make the most heinous suppositions about a person's motives. They attack supporters just as vehemently. Where are the issues in all of this? They've become tangential.

Currently I'm not in a position to determine which side has been worse. I've been offline for the better part of the past six weeks and from what I can understand it was probably a really good thing. I'd rather that we spend more time talking to each other and a little less time beating each other up. In interest of full disclosure, I haven't made up my mind either. I'm not particularly happy with the choices we have but I am leaning toward Obama. But truthfully, I'm not sold on either one. In the meantime I have refrained from the trashing and harping on the two candidates that has become prevalent around here and look forward to the day when we're all outraged by the same thing and commit to work together to make change happen.

which borrowed from that Britney Spears fan with the dark roots huddled under his bedsheets with his video camera and bleating into it on her behalf. Chris Crocker, I think his name is.

I don't want to sound like some Miss Priss, or some self-appointed censor, but it really does have to stop, ASAP, before we all tear each other up. And I don't mean JUST here at DU. We're gonna need every last one of us here and all over the country, whenever the tug-o-war between Clinton and Obama is finally settled, united in resolved lockstep as an Army of Overwhelm - to kick the bad guys so far out of power from top to bottom that it takes them the better part of this century to regroup and recover. Hopefully they'll NEVER completely regain all the ground they deserve to lose.

But we can't do that if we're all fighting amongst ourselves. We should be aiming our best shots outward - at THEM. NOT at each other.

PS: Mabus, glad you're back! I completely understand your decision to take a break from here. It's gotten a little wild and wooly sometimes. I think it's mainly a factor of how much completely criminal outrage we've seen, that's gone repeatedly unchallenged and unchecked ever since these bastards first "TOOK" power. And I think it's begun to get to some of us, especially as we've watched, and felt pretty damned powerless and invisible to stop any of it. I've felt myself getting pretty frustrated and irate, too, and it's provoked some rather heated discussions at our house. We ALL feel the same way. I once said - that comment Hillary Clinton made before the New Hampshire primary where she choked up while saying "we've got to reverse it" - I swear I've uttered the exact same thing, with the exact same lump of desperation in my own throat, and deep in my heart and soul.

I HATE what these people have done to our country, and it's made me hate them for doing it. And sometimes I turn on some "noncombatant" in my own life who doesn't deserve it.

I just keep thinking back to 2004. The good doctor got bashed but then he ended up as the head of the DNC. So the people we bash and denigrate today may be the person we'll be relying on at a later time. There seem to be some people who don't understand that ultimately, we're all playing on the same team. We need to really put aside some of the rancor on the DU and put that energy in supporting the candidates we believe in. There are a lot of congress critters we could be working for or on instead of spending all our spare time looking being negative and alienating others.

fwiw, my exile from DU wasn't self-imposed. We moved from Kansas to Maryland when the husband got a job in DC. It was a pretty sudden decision and preparing for the move meant I wasn't able to spend time online before we left. After we got here, it took over a month to get hooked up again. I found the local libraries but my internet usage was limited to one hour and I spent it either checking e-mail or checking out maps to find my way around. Otherwise I kept busy unpacking, getting the pups used to their new schedules and environs and so forth. It's good to be back but I'm glad I missed a month's worth of in-fighting.

:hi:

Why tucker! I didn't know you were hanging around here!

:D

I knew this would provoke.

I have one regret:

I wrote and filed this before MY favorite punching bag, the utterly loutish chris matthews, issued that coarse comment on primary night about the amazing vibes coming across from everyone at one Obama rally he attended. It was amazing, he said, evoking a powerful feeling that ran straight up his leg.

Oh, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, chris!!! PUT A SOCK IN IT!!!! (Assuming you have any left that you probably haven't stuffed down your own shorts). That one was so tawdry that - I don't know if anyone caught it but - the next afternoon, Jack Cafferty and Wolf Blitzer were snickering about it together on CNN. They mentioned matthews by name. Made him look rather foolish. Made his whole network look that way. Capital job there, chris! You've turned not only yourself but MSNBC into a laughingstock. Unbelievable. And he's supposed to be - what? In his 50's or something? Shouldn't he know how to behave in public by now? Who the hell raised him?

Just incredibly tiresome, uncouth, completely juvenile, and embarrassing as hell. I said this elsewhere here - that he reminds me of some unruly seven-year-old who decides he just simply MUST keep farting out loud in the middle of church services. I wonder what MSNBC's brass thinks it's running here? A national cable news outlet or a construction site?

:hi: Sis...

NGU.

And Happy Valentine's Day to you and yours!!!

:headbang:

Please keep it up. Cheers

Happy Valentine's Day! I'll keep it up as long as you'll have me!

:toast: :pals:

K&R

I sooooooo agree with your column!

Thanks! And you and Sparkly both deserve all those hearts!!!

:hug:

Up to and including I'm an Obama supporter, and was appalled at the crack about Chelsea. This after I was appalled by the obsession with Hillary's so-called "crying." Maybe the reason most of these idiot talking heads can't seem to address real news issues is because they have too many unresolved personal issues.

Steve Capus about it, which I'm mailing off tonight. Yes. Snail mail. I like the idea of a paper trail that can be looked at, passed around, held in the hand (makes it unavoidably real and tangible), xeroxed a few times, and posted on newsroom and coffee room bulliten boards.

I've written some of the same stuff here. In fact, one of the reasons I like this place is because it sharpens my proverbial pen.


2/14/08

Mr. Steve Capus
President, NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112

Dear Mr. Capus,

I’ve tried to hold off.

But you know how it is when the pimple just finally pops.

You suspended the wrong guy last week. Sure, David Shuster’s remark about Chelsea Clinton was rather disgusting and deeply unappreciated. But I think he died for Chris Matthews’ sins.

For the love of God, HOW MUCH MORE OF THIS ARE WE VIEWERS GOING TO HAVE TO PUT UP WITH? (Yes, I’m SHOUTING!)

Do you realize that your network has now become a laughing stock in other media? Did you see Wolf Blitzer and Jack Cafferty snickering only yesterday afternoon (2/13/08) about the latest “cute” crack out of Matthews’ mouth – regarding the excitement generated by an Obama rally he observed – running straight up his leg?

If it were an isolated wisecrack, perhaps it’d be easy to shrug off. But this is a trend. Another in a continuing series of obnoxious, leering, juvenile, offensive, loutish, slobbering, and completely unnecessary adlibs, sexist and sex-obsessed.

WHAT is this guy’s problem? It goes way beyond insulting jabs at Hillary Clinton, or the Clintons in general. What is it with the never-ending man-crushes (he’s practically fellated Rudy Giuliani, Ed Rendell, and George W. Bush in his flight suit – and a host of other idolized “Guys” – on the air), the nearly-irrational testosterone-obsession, the annoyingly obvious father-complex issues, and the honking like some constipated goose at various females, whether they’re attractive guests or a beautiful young reporter on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange?

I don’t care how well-connected he is inside the Beltway. To the rest of us, he’s little more than an undisciplined seven-year-old who’s determined to continue farting out loud in the middle of church services. Just exactly what are you running here anyway - a national news network or a construction site?

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a former NBC News reporter myself, among many broadcast journalism jobs I once held. I’ve had my share of pushing the envelope to provoke audience reaction, “stir things up,” or make a memorable point on the air. And I remember widely-circulated outtakes reels another NBC News luminary of decades ago, one Robert McCormick, who regularly went on the air in a thoroughly liquid state. Evidently, his sources were so good that he somehow kept his job, no matter how many sheets-to-the-wind he was by the time he stumbled into the on-air booth to stumble through yet another sloshed radio news update. Tolerable at best, but how we’d hoot over the audio mess that was as famed as his Capitol Hill connections. Perhaps Chris Matthews has inherited his mantle.

But enough is enough. Surely you have other on-air staffers who generate equally compelling broadcasts and who are sufficiently well-connected to step in without offending many of your viewers – male and female alike. You might consider promoting Rachel Maddow, or giving Keith Olbermann more face time. Matthews would serve just as effectively OFF the air, and you wouldn’t risk alienating an increasing number of viewers just as you’ve begun to make serious inroads against Fox News and CNN.

I turn to MSNBC for informative, thought-provoking, and adult-level politics (especially programs like Olbermann’s) and a somewhat less-biased, even center-left presentation – which in itself is a MOST refreshing and welcome change. I don’t go to seek out the boors, the louts, or the prurient men’s-locker-room shtick. Frankly, I’m surprised there isn’t a regular “Hardball” segment on towel-snapping by now.

Thank you for considering my complaint. I just had to get this off my chest, and onto your radar screen. As I said above, enough is ENOUGH.

Sincerely,





(me)
A VERY weary and almost fed-up viewer


CC: Mr. Phil Griffin, Mr. David Brock


The CC's here are Phil Griffin, the senior vp for news at NBC, and David Brock of Media Matters of America http://mediamatters.org/items/200801170003 - they have an entire subsection devoted specifically to chris matthews.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

Now if they'll just listen...

shall we say - PERSONAL ISSUES????? It's a good one and it's spot-on.

I noticed something very telling about my son when he was about 2. At that age, one simply magical and uproarious day, he discovered - uh - shall we say - himself. He realized he could make it stand up. He learned he could also let it relax back down. He found out that when he made it stand up he could hang things off of it. It didn't take him very long to recognize it as a handle, as well. So then we went through months and months of him literally pulling himself around the house. He'd do it all the time, day and night, and whether we had company or not.

My son outgrew all that after about a year. It strikes me that allegedly "grown men" like chris matthews are very much still into it.

:eyes:

Now I have an image of Tweety in my head, "pulling" himself around his dank dwelling. :rofl:

Probably the only way he knows how to get a handle on the issues...:rofl:

The fatigue from the pace and the grueling intensity of this contest is in open view every place we look. Three more (from Hillary's campaign) have fallen out since David Shuster fell on his sword for MSNBC, but the question remains: who will be next?

Everything you say about Chris Matthews is absolutely true. No one was more appalled than I during Election 2000 when he constantly cut away at Al Gore. And he was not the only one. Al Gore in the media died a political death from a thousand and one cuts. So if you are thinking the same thing is happening to Hillary, I will say I do not think the media overall likes Hillary. To a certain extent, and this is one way in which we differ, I do think she has brought some of the dislike on herself. In particular the remark she made to Katy Curick (not sure of that spelling) in her interview a few months ago -- "Oh, but it will be me" -- came across as the same hubris Bush* and his coterie have been viewed as having. I think it is a natural instinct to want some sort of humbleness from someone asking for your vote. I also think that anything anyone does that instantly reminds a voter of Bush* will automatically evoke a recoil. In that regard, Hillary has made some mistakes and alienated the press. Sure they are supposed to be above this, and to be neutral, but these broadcasters are only human, and in that regard, I think they can't always stop some of their feelings from being on display. In no way should that be construed as my hating Hillary, I don't -- I think she thinks she must display a strong hand to show leadership qualities, and in some regards emulates the Bush* model TO HER DETRIMENT. However, the media has not gone as far with her as it did with Gore AND there are obviously those commentators who do root for her.

Overall, I think it was kind of corny (I hate to use such an obsolete word, but in this context it is appropriate) to play the I am Woman card. I see it as an insult to a woman's intelligence to ask her to vote for you because You Too Are Women. This might simply be an East Coast perspective I have. But it's all in the issues for me. I don't see Barack Obama as a black man. I simply see a man. And when I look at Hillary Clinton, I simply see a candidate, not a woman. In that regard, I am listening to their words, not observing their physical attributes. It is their words which will sway my vote, not their gender or race. (If you are thinking I take this too seriously, you are right!)

But the absolutely worse mistake Hillary made which impacted partially her relationship with the media is that SHE PICKED TERRIBLE ADVISORS. How much lower can one go than Mark Penn -- well, okay, Karl Rove (a Lee Atwater protege), but Mark Penn reminds a lot of people of Karl Rove and that has operated to Hillary's detriment as well. She is a smart woman who probably could have done a lot better operating on her own gut instincts than listening to some of the not-so-sharp drivers steering her campaign.

As far as David Shuster is concerned, I did not interpret his sentence as one having a sexual connotation. David Shuster is not a dumb person. To look into a camera and say from a cable news network a sentence about the Clintons' relationship with their daughter in a SEXUAL context would be the equivalent of asking to be fired. The discussion he was having was a political one. In that reference, he asked whether the Clintons were pimping Chelsea out with regard to the Super Delegate votes. That word "pimp", in addition to the definition with which we are most familiar, means to literally procure. Shuster's question was literally are the Clintons using Chelsea to procure the votes of Super Delegates. There's no question about it. I think he showed bad judgment in using the word, but I thought it was obvious he, as so many writers and commentators do today, was attempting to spike his jargon to rivet attention to what he was saying.

I do strenuously object to commentators making wise cracks about the underaged children of politicians, but I do think when the Clintons asked Chelsea to participate in the campaign, they, of all people, had to have known she might possibly become a victim of the land mines inherent in the game. They exposed her to those inevitable land mines. So I am conflicted because I think both the Clintons and David Shuster might want to revisit some of their decisions if they truly have Chelsea's best interests at heart. Chelsea Clinton is a very lovely young woman, and I truly regret any hurt she might have felt at hearing Shuster's remark. And there is one thing no one can take away from Hillary and Bill Clinton: they did an absolutely wonderful job at raising their child.

Overall, your thread is extremely interesting and makes us all think more deeply about these issues. In that regard, we are so fortunate you keep coming around to shake some sense into us, and make us think, and perhaps one day you will totally straighten me up!

Mary, Mary, it's always interesting when the West Coast perspective and the East Coast view intersect and converse! Thanks for a great read.

(Your friend)
Sam

Fatigue.

I'm certainly tired of all this excruciatingly tiresome crap.

Guys, I hate to sound like Hayley Mills and Hayley Mills (from the original "Parent Trap") but - c'mon - let's get together, yeah-yeah-yeah.

We HAVE to. The White House, the Supreme Court, ending the war, solving some of the health care crisis, and so many other essentials all hang in the balance. If we keep on feuding, we just do the bad guys' work for them.

The gist of it should have been I live and work here in the East. The pace in Washington is always breakneck. People reach a point where they are functioning on simply fumes. When this occurs, they frequently say things they would not normally say when operating in a well-rested, normally-fed mode. I see it all the time; it's been that way for years.

This campaign has moved at an incredible, exhausting pace. That exhaustion is reflected in the faces of the candidates, their families, the anchormen and women covering this race, and on this website. But I am at the point now where I simply listen to people say ridiculous things, even outrageous things, and I no longer react as I normally would. I just simply say, they are exhausted and not themselves. That's what I thought of the Shuster remark. He's been up well early in the mornings here on Morning Joe (that starts airing at 6:00 a.m. and runs three hours), and I see him late at night on other shows. The same is true for other commentators like Buchanan. I don't know how they do it. In their business a mere slip of a word can hang you. And one slip did knock Shuster down. I think it was a fatigue thing.

You were right, though, we have to start pulling together. We just are all so tired from this exciting race, we can't tune out and get our rest, and jump-start our brains and mouths into normal mode. I hope the damage we are doing to ourselves and each other is not permanent. We are, after all, a political family.

Sam

You reference the East Coast, and it's a detail worth mentioning. The pace IS quite a bit more frenetic there. I've been there for brief periods for different reasons, and it's tangible. New York City is the same way. Then I'd go back to L.A. and see how there wasn't this sense of manic electricity in the air. Maybe it's the weather? It tends to go easier on us out here so maybe we just turn around and go easier on everything, in reaction. It does make a difference, though, in energy levels and functionality. ESPECIALLY when you're cranking on all cylinders - IN Washington DC, IN an election year, and not just any election year, either, in the midst of an ultra-contentious time where so terribly much is at risk. And you don't dare wanna shut your eyes or look away or drop your guard for a second! It's too all-consuming wanting to stick around and see what happens next! So yeah, you might make a slip-up. It does happen. I was on the air for awhile and I had my share. That's how you get outtakes reels circulating all over the place, after all. And sometimes if you're just too fried, maybe you go overboard - although I'd expect someone of the caliber of David Shuster would not blow it quite like that.

Poor schmuck is probably kicking himself all over the map. This is NO time to have to be off the air if your beat is politics.

I don't normally do this sort of thing but I have been functioning on too little rest and jumping onto DU and typing in my sleep. Do you know that state -- brain functioning, body zapped, working on the computer one eye open, one not? ;) So I am ripping through some threads, responding, responding, really stoked. The next day I check to see if I have any replies and click on one. Then I see It. In a line where I meant to type "abominable" I see the word "abdomen." I am APPALLED. Furthermore, "THE EDIT TIME HAS EXPIRED." That mistake now lives in my DU eternity, soon to be permanently archived. On that day, I forgave David Shuster.

The worst of us chronically makes mistakes in taste and judgment. The best of us occasionally do. As someone in the middle of those two statements, I can't be TOO critical of others....

Nice to see you are back here.

Sam

MY favorite take on that is a favorite quote from an early "Peanuts" cartoon. After Lucy has made an ass of herself yet again, she turns outward to the reader and says "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart." I think I first read that in a book of "Peanuts" cartoons I had as a kid. It stuck in my mind as though it had been welded in there.

:silly:

Morning Joe. Something he said made me think of this thread. The essence of it was that Hillary needs to to get rid of the people in her campaign who are "kneecapping" Obama. If she wants to be competitive, she needs to reverse her message to say positive things about herself and her goals (words to that effect). He also said these kneecappers had adversely impacted her relationship with the Press.

I am just passing this on for your consideration and comment ... and to kick this thread! :)

Sam

Not the first place I've heard this line of questioning. Now they're actually on the air brainstorming with guest panelists how the Clinton campaign might be salvaged and via what specific techniques. Quite an about-face. You woulda thought they all wanted her to lose from the treatment she's received so far (I don't mean exclusively during this campaign season, either. She might as well have worn a kick-me sign on her back for the past 16 years or so).

Of course, matthews would advise going negative. NOTHING he loves more than stirring up a fight and then rubbing his hands together with glee and twinkly eyes. Yeah! GREAT television! Sigh... after awhile, I've gotta say I find that on-air approach really starting to get tiresome. But matthews lives to stir things up. Maybe that's why he blurts this stuff out. Seems to be growing in frequency, though, and it appears I'm not the only one bugged by it. Media Matters has its own separate page exclusively devoted to a "matthews watch."

There's been a lot of hot and heavy negotiating between the Clinton camp and the Head Honchos at MSNBC.

"You have been cooking my campaign in your coverage," she said, "and I want restitution."

"We don't negotiate when given ultimatums by Presidential wannabees," Head Honcho said.

"If you ever want to see your cohort David Shuster back on the air verbally busting my buns again," you better start forking over more positive media coverage and focus that camera on the cheeks in my face instead of my rear. I know what you guys have been up to and it ain't pretty."

Thus commenced the MSNBC groveling and the flattering Hillary coverage. Question: how long will the truce last? I give it until midnight Monday. What's your best guess?

Sam

They have fawned and caved and genuflected in the media to george w bush and dick cheney and all the wrong-wingers for all this time. The coverage has been nearly adoring. Nothing but lapdogs and cheerleaders and cover-up artists as far as the eye could see - across every newspaper page, around the clock on every cable news show, every regular TV news show, and soon they had a whole fucking network devoted to promoting all things CONservative and lacerating and persecuting all things Clinton. And when bush arrived, it was all ANYONE could do to sweep ANYTHING that was negative under the rug. This started NOT after 9/11, but during the 2000 campaign, when NOTHING stuck to him. There was NO effort whatsoever to look at him objectively. All the media could do was find fault with Al Gore, repeat the lies about him saying he'd invented the internet (he never did) or obsessing on his "earth tone" wardrobe changes. They dumped on him 24/7/52/365. bush, by contrast, got nothing but kid gloves and swoons while everyone gushed about how down-home folksy and plain-tawkin' he was, and oh-dear-God my fluttering heart! I hope he gives me a nickname!!! Do you think he will? Do you really think he will? Do you think he even notices me?

It wasn't 9/11 that set any of that embarrassing news fellatio. It was simply determined early-on that bush = good, Gore = bad or boring or some such derisiveness. They were already predisposed to give george the king-of-the-world treatment. Nothing negative about him ever got traction, ever got reported, ever got exposed, ever got publicly examined, ever got investigated, and when anybody even broached the subject, he'd say "it's been thoroughly vetted" and everyone just settled back down and took his word for it and didn't ask any questions or voice any doubts or try to get a second opinion, and then went looking for something else derogatory to write or report about Al Gore.

To say Gross Dereliction of Duty is to damn it with faint praise. There is NO EXCUSE for what the media did. They allowed themselves to be played and intimidated and led by a republi-CON/CONservative media machine involving the limbaughs and many clones of hate radio who were being such squeaky wheels they sucked all the oxygen out of the media landscape, leaving nothing else still standing except themselves. And the rest of the media allowed itself to be led. And they looked at rush's ratings and assumed that's what the people wanted to hear and if you want ratings like that you have to BE that, yourself, and there was NO push-back from the other direction (like OURS) to counter-act or slow down that momentum.

So if that kind of effect is starting, now, pushing back from OUR side, and forcing the media to back off and cowtow to one of OURS for a change, hey, I'm COMPLETELY FOR IT. Time for some REAL fairness and balance. Time for EQUAL TIME. Time to EVEN the score, AND the playing field. If we have to push back and apply some of the same manipulation and hard-ass hardball, then so be it. If Hillary or somebody else on our end is pushing back against the media machinery and intimidating it - all I can say is, it's about time SOMEBODY on our side started bullying them. Otherwise, all the bullying is going to come from the bad guys. You know what, Hillary? If you wanna slap them around and get somebody suspended or get somebody fired and flex your muscle, I say GO FOR IT. At least SOMEBODY on our side is starting to play hard, and put on the brass knuckles. It's about time the media felt it from OUR side for a change.

If you want this shit to stop, it won't stop just because you ask nicely, or because you say "OUCH! That hurts!" It won't stop unless you MAKE IT STOP. By force. I think I'd rather LIKE to see the media cowed by OUR people for a change. If that's what it takes to get better and less hostile coverage, then I'm TOTALLY for it.

Yes, it's not great. Yes, it's not the most above-board. But fuck it! The bad guys do it all the time, and they win, and they get ahead, and they bully the media into fawning compliance, and they freeze out or intimidate those who'd challenge or criticize. And if THAT'S THE WAY THE GAME IS PLAYED (and it most certainly IS), then I want OUR side to play it - and play it ruthlessly. Play it for blood. Play it for keeps. Play it TO WIN. Otherwise, the bad guys will be in the game by themselves and THEY'LL be the ones pushing it all in THEIR preferred direction. I wanna get in there and PUSH BACK!!!

I'd say the same if the Obama camp had done this. But now, as I think about it, they HAVE. Pox Noise tried to smear Obama early-on in the campaign, and he responded by freezing them out. He stepped up and told them in effect to go fuck themselves - that they would NOT get access to them. And the Dems as a block finally got the balls to boycott Pox and refuse to participate in any Pox-hosted debates. It was quite masterful. It worked! Pox was relegated to watching most of the action from the sidelines because the most interesting and compelling races were on OUR side, not the CONS' side, and they wound up pushed outside, with no ability to do anything else but look in with their snotty noses pressed against the glass. And meantime, CNN overtook 'em in the ratings, and became THE go-to cable outlet for the campaign, and MSNBC even gained - even tying them in one recent matchup.

SOMEBODY had to start kicking these bastards in the teeth. That's the only thing they understand. And don't they deserve it by now? People got reassigned, fired, and shelved during the bush heyday for daring to tell or print the truth. If David Shuster has to sit in the cooler for a couple of weeks, maybe that'll serve notice to everybody else to KNOCK IT THE FUCK OFF!!! Maybe, just maybe, it'll cause other media pie-holes (ironically I actually mis-typed and made it "pie-hos"!) not to be quite so careless when they're snarking OUR people.

After all, we ARE at war, are we not?

The only thing I regret is that the Dems did not cohesively act in 2000 against the media bias displayed toward Gore. You described it well. I was outraged during that entire campaign over the things said about and done to Al Gore. I have been a fan of his for years, and before him, his father.

His late father's home in Carthage, Tennessee was but 60 miles from my grandmother's home. We followed his career as well, and respected him for his vote on the 1965 Civil Rights Act, a vote of support which he knew might end his career in the Red State, and his position against the Vietnam War, also an unpopular stand in the Volunteer State. Nixon, outraged at Gore's father, subsequently sent operatives into Tennessee to work against Al Gore Sr.'s re-election, and they did succeed.

It takes a lot of courage to do the right thing when you know it will cost you your career, but that is the cloth from which Al Gore's father was cut. And I believe the son is cut from that same cloth. Thus when the media disparaged his (Al Gore, the son's) reputation and ridiculed the man at every opportunity, I couldn't believe it. But no one consistently from the party really stepped out and railed against the discriminatory coverage. Because that party support was neglected, the precedent was set the media could get away with whatever it wanted, Kerry paid in 2004, and Hillary pays in 2008.

The one good thing that might come out of this is that from hereon out the media might recognize that things have changed. It will be held accountable. And that's a good thing!

Sam

Snide, snarky bitch! She couldn't poke enough fun at Al Gore. She was one of the worst. OH his delivery! OH his earth tones! She just couldn't feed off his carcass enough. Her subsequent awakening to the wretched "presidency" that SHE PERSONALLY ENABLED rings hollow to me. Every time I see some lame-ass snarky "OH so humorous and clever" column of hers, where she's started referring to cheney simply as "Vice," and she laments the hypocrisy and criminality of "bushworld," I just shake my head. What's the matter, maureen? Isn't this what you wanted? I thought you just LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVED this guy! You hated Al Gore. You sneered at him over and over and over again and took every potshot you could find at him. You couldn't get enough of dumping on Al Gore. Maybe if you'd focused on the candidate who DESERVED to be dumped on, we wouldn't have suffered through the last MISERABLE seven-and-a-half years, almost FOUR THOUSAND Americans would not be dead, who knows how many arms, legs, eyes, and free ability to walk are all gone forever - both on our side AND among the innocent Iraqis because of what you helped to perpetrate on this country.

Anybody remember seeing "Fahrenheit 911"? Anybody remember the shock and disbelief they felt during the first half-hour or so of that movie when we had to relive that tragic November and December, and then Inauguration Day - and all the stuff that was in the movie that NEVER made the evening news????? Did ANYBODY in the mainstream media report on the near-riot along the motorcade route, when bush's limo couldn't even move for the angry protestors? Anybody see a single protest sign photographed for the morning papers? Anybody see how he had to sneak in the back door of the White House because of the protests?

Of course you didn't see any of that on the network news. NOWHERE. It was ALL suppressed. And it's galled me ever since. I'm a retired reporter myself and I have NEVER been so disgusted!!! I worked with a lot of people who just sat there at White House press conference after White House press conference - never asking any questions worth anything, never wanting to stand up and confront bush or any of his sycophants. NEVER. NOTHING. I hate how they've made me ashamed of the profession I used to admire so much, and of which I once felt SO proud and privileged to have been part. I used to be so proud of being a journalist. Now, it's an utter disgrace. NOTHING about which to hold one's head up high.

Gross Dereliction of Duty. Judy Miller wasn't the only "journalist" who deserved to do time behind bars. MOST OF THEM did, and still do.

from a great DU'er.

Sam