Rendell, an ardent Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter during the primaries, now backs Obama in the general election.
Brokaw is right, Olbermann and Matthews aren't the 'only' voices on MSNBC, but they are the most prominent. I mean, they anchor their election coverage even though everyone knows where they stand politically. Rachel Maddow from Air America is shaping up to be the third most prominent voice on MSNBC. She just got the 9PM timeslot. She's very intelligent (Rhodes Scholar) and she can debate and argue with anyone, but the show just might end up being a continuation of Countdown.
He was a Hillary supporter first. Chris Matthews, Rendell said, "loses his impartiality when he talks about the Clintons.”
http://patterico.com/2008/08/06/pew-poll-obama-has-too-much-media/ new Pew Research Center poll confirms many Americans believe Barack Obama has had too much press and it may be hurting his popularity: “By a margin of 76% to 11% respondents in Pew’s weekly News Interest Index survey named Obama over McCain as the candidate they have heard the most about in recent days. But the same poll also shows that the Democratic candidate’s media dominance may not be working in his favor. Close to half (48%) of Pew’s interviewees went on to say that they have been hearing too much about Obama lately. And by a slight, but statistically significant margin - 22% to 16% - people say that recently they have a less rather than more favorable view of the putative Democratic nominee.” Republicans are more likely to say they want to hear less about Obama, although 51% of independents felt they had heard too much and almost a third of Democrats agreed.
He's a democrat first. He's supporting the party nominee, not blindly supporting his preferred candidate. And he's being brutally honest.
Not really, the Clintonites were very passionate (and hateful) throughout the entire process. Those feelings don't just wash away in three months.
So wait a minute.... According to the poll people believe their has been unfair coverage of Obama and it hurts his popularity. So why are republicans complaining? Granted that poll's point was to prove that it may be hurting him but I don't agree with there being only a 48% margin, lol, thats bad reporting. Although I support Obama I agree that more coverage of McCain would be nice. When I want to know McCain's stance on a lot of things I have to look it up myself, and from multiple sources to make sure it's true. All of Obama's platform, history, etc is on the news all day.
I'm not for Obama, and I'm not for McCain. I have no dog in that hunt. At the Saddleback, McCain kicked Obama's ass all over the place ON THE ISSUES.
The problem with this coverage whining or whatever you want to call it is that look at the ratings. MSNBC is way behind CNN and Fox news. In fact I think Fox news was #1 in 2007 rating wise when comparing the 3 networks. Now I hate Fox news because I can't stand some of their personalities. Specifically Sean Hannity but people do watch them. It's no secret that CNN is often been referred to as the "Clinton News Newswork". I watch them and even with this convention is supposed to be about Obama, they talk Clinton over and over. In the end my point is everything balances it out and the media bias is a bit overblown and isn't a good excuse.
Fox has been reporting on Obama over McCain by a huge margin, too. They're just not overtly rooting for Obama like the other networks (and PBS) do. I agree that Hannity is hard to watch for more than a minute or two, tho the guests are interesting enough - I happen to be a huge Pat Cadell fan (democratic pollster) and he's on H&C more than any other program/network I've seen (he used to be on MSNBC). Rendell was a regular guest on Hardball (I'm a Chris Matthews fan, FWIW) before he got elected governor.
Thank You God, I knew Denny agreed with me about Hannity. Haha. :] H&C is ok though, at least Colmes nullifies Sean to a degree.
Who remembers John Stewart's appearance on "Crossfire" 4 years ago? Loved it! If you don't watch the whole thing, make sure you at least watch the last 30 seconds...lol [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11TaDDUVcGQ[/video]
I've been forcing myself to watch FOX's coverage and commentary about the DNC tonight. O'Reilly is now on. One of the first things he brought up were some radical protesters outside the convention. He sets up the whole episode with "Are the Democrats going to be hurt by the lunatics that are demonstrating outside the building?" They then show footage of some teenagers in costumes outside with a few picket signs or something. They send a FOX reporter right into the middle of the costume people, and are now attempting to connect some dots between the whole DNC, and a few crazies outside. O'Reilly's spin knows no boundaries. Why can't Bill do intelligent journalism? Why is he all shock, and no substance?
Churchill looks to be a guy that is similar to O'Reilly in that I could only stand to listen to him in extremely small doses.
