Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Salon.Com hands Tweety & Co. their ass!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Shopaholic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-06-04 09:15 AM
Original message
Salon.Com hands Tweety & Co. their ass!
Read entire column here (if you're not a registered member they'll make you sit through a "commercial" first): http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/06/veepmedia/index.html

Some Excerpts:

So what debate was the crew at MSNBC watching Tuesday night? Following the vice-presidential faceoff, which most observers declared a draw. . . the MSNBC team of pundits. . immediately declared the debate a knockout for Cheney. The Cheney group hug began before Edwards had even exited the debate stage in Cleveland. . . while host Matthews skewered Edwards in a strangely personal way, reminiscent of the way Matthews hounded President Bill Clinton throughout the impeachment process.

Yet nowhere else on the television landscape -- not even on Fox News -- was Cheney crowned the winner. Most pundits saw the debate as an obvious draw. . .None of that seemed to matter inside the MSNBC echo chamber. Matthews and his crew had their story line -- Cheney won big! -- and they were sticking with it, with Matthews even wondering out loud if the choice of Edwards for V.P. "casts doubt on the judgment of John Kerry," and whether Edwards may "not be ready to be vice president of the United States." Which again raises the question: What debate was Matthews watching, and what did Edwards ever do to him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-06-04 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. Not surprised at Tweety and Andrea Mitchell. But I am with Ron Reagan.
I sort of thought Ron Reagan had a shred of spine and independent thought. But, lo and behold...Ron was shilling with the rest of the panel. Sort of sad, I thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-06-04 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. After the Kerry/Bush debate.....
Ron said that he was not sure who won the debate.....hahaha....it is like he is gun shy on TV to say how he really feels....he writes beautifully about how Bush is a disaster but on TV he is scared to show his objective side....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PROGRESSIVE1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-06-04 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
2. MSGOP strikes again!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-06-04 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
3. shockingly-even Candy Crowley of CNN said Edwards came off as Presidential
That made my draw drop last night... and, when they brought up fact checking, their only comment was Bill Schneider saying that Edwards was correct when 88.5% of the coalition casualties were US soldiers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-06-04 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Shocking that she would admit it but true nonetheless
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuminousX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-06-04 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
4. They were caught up by the old debate trick
Cheney used too many times last night:

There are so many inaccuracies in what my opponent has said that I don't have time to address them all and in fact, I don't even know where to start. Oops, I used up all my time saying this preamble, but just so the viewers know, what he said is all bullshit and if I had more time I would explain why it was bullshit, but because I don't have the time and I have used up all the time with this preamble to my answer, I can't even lay out the evidence to prove that even one thing my opponent has said is wrong. Just trust me, it was all bullshit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-06-04 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Sorry, but I don't see how that could possibly be effective.
At least not on anyone with an IQ above 100.

I just about coughed up a lung when he did that. He doesn't have time to answer any charges, so his plan is to sit there with a stupid smirk on his face and waste a few moments more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-06-04 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. That must mean that a lot of pundits have IQs less than 100.
Because it certainly seemed to fool them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-06-04 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Or they like those nice fat paychecks
so they'll keep playing the shill for the fatcats. Remember Donahue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
displacedtexan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-06-04 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Yep. That's how it's done. And if that doesn't take up all of the time...
go into a lament of you opponent's mischaracterization of the metaphysicality of today's debate and how your opponent doesn't have the depth of experience rooted in thoughtful study of the issues which are first and foremost crucial to our very survival; then shake your head and lament the short time period problem again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debatepro Donating Member (683 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-06-04 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
9. Advertiser question
Edited on Wed Oct-06-04 09:36 AM by debatepro
If anyone has a tape of the nonsense. Could they find out which comersials were displayed and what the name of the companies are. If mathews won't change we can email there advertizers and tell them we will not use there products because of his bias. Probably much more effective than emailing him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC