Olbermann and O'Reilly, Cafferty and Hannity, Stewart and Tucker

all are different faces of the same play.

Most of us do not watch Fox and the "hosted" program because we know - like Cheney who requested TV be tuned to Fox in his hotel rooms - how predictable they are: Liberal bad, Conservatives good.

Yet, we need to know what is being said there because too many of our co-workers and for some - family members - get their information there.

So I am grateful to the courageous DUers who watch and report back and for others who offer sensible rebuttal, not the too often dismissal of "oh, Fox" (or oh, the "WSJ".

But during this primary season, we found out how predictable Olbermann - and his Newsweek guests - and Cafferty on CNN, and Jon Stewart have been in their "commentaries": Clinton is evil, Obama walks on water. And this is why I, and others, quite watching all of them: Olbermann, Maher, Stewart and Cafferty.

However, if we do take the White House and Congress, many here will be disappointed. Because if Olbermann and Cafferty and Jon stewart would wish to remain relevant, they will have to start mocking and attacking the "ruling class." They will no longer be on "our side," unless they want to become a satire of their former selves.

we all tend to dislike those whose comments run counter to our own...

i would suggest ANYONE in the MSM should be taken for what they are these days...

more entertainers than journalists...if it's on TV, it's just TV...

has consistently made fun of Democrats when called for.

you claim to despise?

Olbermann? Stewart? Maher? I don't think you're fooling anybody but yourself.

who are still interested in fooling themselves, too.

You've got to be kidding me. You realize that Stewart's bread and butter is hammering the MSM? He's beat the stuffing out of Bush and company the last several years because, well hell... if you had a fake comedy news show could YOU pass that buffet up? Once Obama is in will he take shots at his administration too? Of course he will, but it won't be like the last 8 years, and the rest of the media is always good for a flogging over how they're doing business.

As for the incredibly tired "the media loves Obama and hates Hillary! Boo, mean old media!" line. Do you own a television? Did you watch it, at all, in the 10 or so days leading into North Carolina and Indiana? It was like an endless reverend Wright telethon, even though he hadn't done ANYTHING public or newsworthy since the weekend before.

And this mean old media that hates Hillary and loves Obama spent their time saying WHAT while Obama was racking up a string of consecutive victories that would have had them declaring any other candidate a walking corpse? "Oh, it's Hillary Clinton, no you can't count her out. No way! She's still totally in this!"

Give it the hell up. The media has gone easy on Clinton for the most part and we all know it. How many of the Clinton personal scandals through the ages has the media spent any time resurrecting for review while talking about how "vetted" she is and Obama wasn't? Hmmm?

our Presidents to be the elites, the best.

Sure we want, like Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. But most of the country does not and this is how we lose elections. Only Bill Clinton, who came from a poor background who, without his scholastic achievement would have been considered "white trash" captured the affection of many voters. And his presidency, not his campaigning, is now being dismissed by DUers and by the Obamas.

The MSM (and this includes NBC and Newsweek) jumped on Wright - but not on Obama - because even they realized how lopsided their reports have been. And they jumped on Wright because it did demonstrate that racial tension is still alive and well in our country. And not just what he said some six years ago, but recently, saying that attacking him was attacking black churches.

With Clinton's scandals of the 90s, they correctly concluded that most viewers really do not car to rehashing them again, though they would, if she were the nominees and the Republicans would raise them.

I never agreed with Stewartt more than when he said I want a President who is 10X smarter than me.

BTW Bill and Hillary af Elites..they went to Ivy League Schools and he was a Rhodes Scholar He spent most of his life in a Govenor Mansion, White House, or another Mansion, and BTW Obama grew up much poorer than Hillary the only problem people have with it is (he's black).

but the reality is that most voters prefer someone with whom they can share beer, or something.

So I can "stick to principles" and vote, say, for Nader, and end up with 8 disastrous years, or stay home - as many anti-war did in 1968 - or I can study how to win elections and follow through, even if I don't like everything.

As many said on these pages: if I wanted the candidate with whom I agree hundred percent I would vote for myself. For example, we no longer talk about the death penalty, now, do we? And McCain rarely talks about him being anti-women, so many women think that "Maverick" means being pro-choice.

Our problems in 1988, 2000 and 2004 was that our candidates appeared too elitist.

And, by the way, I do not consider an elitist someone with high education or background. But someone who talks down to people, who thinks that s/he knows what is good for you and tells you so, never asking for your input because, well, you lack the education or the knowledge or all the data. You are just a simple man or woman who may not understand high economics but knows why his family his hurting and why he worries.

Olberman has been the biggest disappointment, his show is so predictable and the O'reilly bit is very stale. If he was objective he could be the star on his own "worst person" every night.

Maher and Stewart are both backing Obama, but at least they're still funny

I disagree on one point and that is if Obama wins and the congress gains more dem power then Olberman's job (if he still has one) would be to demonize any Obama critics. That is is pretty much his role now and I don't see that changing.

I hate to tell you but Clinton has run a train wreck of a campaign. People are going to report on that. She lies, often to the point of just blatantly saying the exact opposite of what she has previously said publicly "I have always said Michigan should count", "I was never supposed to win Indiana" "The number of delegates needed is obviously 2209", I could fill a page, those were just off the top of my head. If you don't think reporting on her rationalizing, her constant moving of the goal posts, her blatant pandering, are appropriate then I can't help you. They are. Her blatant focus on race in West Virginia was frankly shocking to many people. It is going to be reported on and commented on. You love Clinton, so you either can't or won't see these things as "fair game" apparently, so naturally, when left leaning reporters and commentators have presented these issues, it has been all too easy to go to the "liberal bias in the media" card that has served the right wing so well. Hogwash. Your candidate is a mess and you wish you could keep it a secret. End of story.

:toast:

as the RW tools in your rant?

Puh-leez!

That cable TV host are constantly raked over the coals by Hillary supporters.

Olbermann on his best night reaches maybe with the repeat 1.5 million people a night. He probably reaches less people than have donated to the Obama Campaign.
:rofl:

You lost because your candidate was a poor manager. The media had nothing to do with it.

Keith Olberman will speak from his perspective, whoever is in the WH. And there will remain plenty of rightwingers for him to speak against. What a shame that Hillary wandered into his target -- but it was her wandering, not his targetting, that caused that.

Stewart and Colbert will continue to get a laugh where they can, but their "liberal biases" will continue to come out. Yeah, Stewart has too many conservatives on and is too deferential to many of them. I was really concerned about his Douglas Feith interview last night. But by the end, it was Feith who sat there with a silly grin on his face as he had just been skewered by Stewart, who then said they were out of time and had to go. LOL!

candidate on cable news 24/7. And yet the "hurt feelings" crowd now condemns and disrespects the small handful of talking heads that might actually cover the Dems positively during the GE?
KO and Stewart will be great advocates for our side of things versus McCain. Maher and Cafferty less so.

EVERYBODY ELSE will be wholeheartedly pimping for McCain.

Cutting of your nose to spite your face much?

With the exception of his anti-immigration stance I think Lou Dobbs does an excellent job.

I do however disagree with the immigration obsession. Viva La Reconquista!