After blasting press for yukking it up with "the people they're charged with covering," will Matthews challenge Russert on Gridiron dinner?
SUMMARY: Chris Matthews lambasted journalists for laughing at and applauding President Bush's performance at the March 8 Gridiron Club dinner. Matthews stated, "If there's one thing I can't stand, it's reporters -- the best of them -- laughing at events and political acts that warrant anything -- I mean anything -- but laughter." Several of Matthews' colleagues reportedly attended the Gridiron Club dinner, including NBC's Tim Russert and Andrea Mitchell.
On the March 11 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews lambasted journalists for laughing at and applauding President Bush's performance at the March 8 Gridiron Club dinner, an annual white-tie event of the Gridiron Club where elected officials and members of the press dine and listen to humorous speeches and skits. Matthews stated, "If there's one thing I can't stand, it's reporters -- the best of them -- laughing at events and political acts that warrant anything -- I mean anything -- but laughter," later adding, "Otherwise, I'm sure it was an enjoyable get-together between journalists and the people they're charged with covering." Matthews played a Youtube video of Bush singing a parody of "Green, Green Grass of Home," which Matthews said was taken with a cell phone during the dinner. In the song, Bush referred to "Harriet," Harriet Miers, former White House counsel and a Bush nominee for the Supreme Court; "Brownie," former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Michael Brown; and "Scooter," former vice-presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak investigation -- who, Bush sang, is "finally free of the prosecutor."
Several of Matthews' colleagues reportedly attended the Gridiron Club dinner, including, according to a March 10 Washington Times article, NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert and NBC News chief foriegn affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell. An April 1, 2007, Washington Post article reported that Russert was admitted as a member of the club in 2006.
After playing the video, during which laughter from the audience was audible, Matthews commented:
MATTHEWS: Well, that was quite a hoot. All that joking by the president about Brownie, the guy in charge of the New Orleans disaster, and, of course, Scooter Libby, the guy involved in a CIA cover-up. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's reporters -- the best of them -- laughing at events and political acts that warrant anything -- I mean anything -- but laughter.
There is nothing, nothing funny about Bush's reference to Brownie, that disastrous appointment followed by that catastrophic handling of the Katrina horror in New Orleans. Nothing funny about a war fought for bad intelligence and a top aide, Scooter Libby, who committed perjury and obstruction of justice to cover it up. Nothing funny about a president who commuted that sentence to keep the cover-up protected. Otherwise, I'm sure it was an enjoyable get-together between journalists and the people they're charged with covering.
From the March 11 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: YouTube. Once again, it means you are there. It also means that a moment otherwise lost to time is trapped for relentless viewing. I'm talking about the cell phone that caught President Bush's performance at a closed-door, white-tie dinner here last weekend. Here he is -- leader of the free world, conqueror of Afghanistan and Iraq.
BUSH [singing, video clip]: [L]ike the big fuss you made over Harriet and Brownie. Down the lane I look and here comes Scooter, finally free of the prosecutor. Yes, you're all going to miss me, the way you used to quiz me. But soon I'll touch the brown, brown grass of home.
MATTHEWS: Well, that was quite a hoot. All that joking by the president about Brownie, the guy in charge of the New Orleans disaster, and, of course, Scooter Libby, the guy involved in a CIA cover-up. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's reporters -- the best of them -- laughing at events and political acts that warrant anything -- I mean anything -- but laughter.
There is nothing, nothing funny about Bush's reference to Brownie, that disastrous appointment followed by that catastrophic handling of the Katrina horror in New Orleans. Nothing funny about a war fought for bad intelligence and a top aide, Scooter Libby, who committed perjury and obstruction of justice to cover it up. Nothing funny about a president who commuted that sentence to keep the cover-up protected. Otherwise, I'm sure it was an enjoyable get-together between journalists and the people they're charged with covering.
After blasting press for yukking it up with "the people they're charged with covering," will Matthews challenge Russert on Gridiron dinner?
Probably not, just like Olbermann won't hand Russert as a Worst Person In The World award.
And I think the same excuse for Keith should be applied to Matthews..IF one is being fair.
"And I think the same excuse for Keith should be applied to Matthews..IF one is being fair."
I agree, though are you saying that for MMfA's sake or us posters' sake?
I agree, though are you saying that for MMfA's sake or us posters' sake?
Both.
Here are a couple of examples of how incestuous they all are and gives a view as to why McCain is the media's darling (sorry to be a little off topic but that seems to be the theme with this thread)
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh031108.shtml
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/11/just-how-cozy-with-john-mccain-should-the-press-be/
Jeter
Good point, MMFA never is critical of Olbermann who allows his MSNBC friends to spew hate yet only calls out people of other networks. Lets be consistent MMFA. If Olbermann does not do it, and he is the MMFA darling, why would Matthews who along with OReilly are the two most hated.
Gov, it's really quite simple.
MMFA is wondering if Matthews will challenge/drill Russert & Mitchell, his MSNBC/NBC colleagues, about the conduct of journalists in attendance at President Bush's performance at the Gridiron Club dinner. Matthews lambasted journalists in general for the laughter & applauding that took place there. Both Russert & Mitchell were in attendance, & probably laughed :-O
My point was WHY would MMFA or posters here expect Matthews to challenge or lambast his co-workers when Olbermann does not chide his MSNBC/NBC colleagues or name any of them Worst Person In The World?
Another words there appears to be one standard for Matthews & other MSNBC/NBC employees & one for MMFA's pet Olbermann.
Gov, it isn't Matthews who has double standards...it's MMFA's & certain posters who have double standards.
I explained it quite thoroughly, once again simply put: you can't call out Matthews for not going after his colleagues when you don't hold Olbermann to the SAME standards.
If you still don't get it, then I can't help you. Personally I think you do understand, but just like being a noodge.
Gov, it isn't Matthews who has double standards...it's MMFA's & certain posters who have double standards.
I explained it quite thoroughly, once again simply put: you can't call out Matthews for not going after his colleagues when you don't hold Olbermann to the SAME standards.
If you still don't get it, then I can't help you. Personally I think you do understand, but just like being a noodge.
Jeter you make great points.
Bottom line is that MMFA loses credibility when it asks questions like this but never takes Olby for task when he does not call out fellow MSNBC haters.
This item is here because of something Matthews chose to assert on his show ...
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's reporters -- the best of them -- laughing at events and political acts that warrant anything -- I mean anything -- but laughter."
... that does not pass the smell test. What did Olbermann state in his show recently that warrants a similar thread?
Yeah Tommy I think Gov just comes here & tries to be a pest. I usually try to ignore him. He reminds me of the little kid who keeps asking "why?" after you've already explained something over & over...
"The point was his selective WIPTW awards"
Sueeld did not bring up WPITW awards - YOU DID. So, WIWPITWH?
Sure
From last nights Olbermann show, trying to smear Geraldine Ferraor and question why she should be fired.
"Senator Clinton has not fired former Congresswoman Ferraro. Walter Mondale‘s running mate and the long time representative from Long Island, New York made her first remarks in an interview that took place February 28th, five days before the Ohio and Texas primaries. These remarks were published only last Friday. "
You don't believe she should be fired? An Obama advisor called Hillary a "monster" overseas and what she wanted to be off the record, and the Clinton camp had her out of Obama's campaign in less than a day. Ferraro says Obama is only where he is today because he's black, and Clinton "regrets" the comment, but won't go any further than that. In other words, she's letting the comment stand as part of her campaign.
Olbermann was definitely correct. Do you not see the hypocrisy in all of this?
No Geraldine Ferrraro is an American hero.
Second she is not paid or work for the campaign so how can she be fired?
She helps with fundraising.
Olbermann is smearing her and it is discusting.
If Matthews started smearing Ferraro the outrage would be out the door.
Olbermann makes me want to puke with his smile and holy and thou attitude.
No wonder Senator Clinton stays away from MSNBC, they are all hateful toward her.
If John McCain said "the only reason Obama is successful is because he's black," what would you think?
Please be honest.
I know, good GOD! I am astounded at my fellow party members.
I am a human being before a liberal, for godsake.
Tommy
What Geraldine Ferraro said was borderline racist, but her record should stand before that statement. My bigger issue is with the division the Clintons are doing to the party.
Getting to MSNBC and Matthews, I have no issue with him as long as Olbermann is allowed to not discuss and be critical of Matthews and his idiotic statements. But him and Abrams who I find as horrible as Olbermann would let us know if Matthews worked for FOX. The double standard is as big as Elliot Spitzers.
Her "record" has more moments of racist comments.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/11/21956/1233/291/474642
You don't have to be racist to make racist comments. Are you saying what she said wasn't racist? I know you're not.
Really, the least Clinton could do is not take any advice from her anymore, or keep her from helping out with the campaign whatsoever.
I disagree, she feels her comments have been taken out of context. This is a good women.
Of course she feels her comments were taken out of context, that's what you say when you say something off the wall.
Imagine if O'Reilly had said this.
And my god, they're pulling the Republican line "my quote was taken out of context" BS? This is worse than I thought.
Clinton needs to quit while she still has some dignity left.
What other context is there ?
I am at a loss with Libs that don't condemn this, hell, even Hillary denounced it
Amen DBEDEN
Racism is racism
F that...I'll do it
I'm declaring SUELD WPosterITW today for slandering a fellow poster, equivocating a fair question about Ferraro's bigoted comments to and I quote "So you hate an elderly women who has cancer? that is what you are saying?"
No SUE, what he's saying is that when a person claims and I quote again, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.” Ferraro's own words, they are being bigoted.
Even Hillary denounced Ferraro's comments, “I said yesterday that I rejected what she said, and I certainly do repudiate it, and I regret deeply that it was said,” Clinton said. “Obviously she doesn’t speak for the campaign, or any of my positions, and she has resigned from being a member of my very large finance committee.”
And with all the chutzpah she could muster Ferraro apologized, sort of "I’m sorry I said nothing negative,” she told FOX News on Wednesday. “I care about the black vote in this country. I really don’t think this is right that they should attack me as racist."
I’m sorry I said nothing negative, What? The last time I said I'm sorry for not doing anything I was five years old. It was obnoxious then and its obnoxious now. It should have been prefaced with FINE! (stomps her feet a bit) I'll APOLOGIZE Jeeez! Ma
SO SUELD, let me get this straight, this is all about age and cancer how?
SUELD Tonights, Worst Poster In The WOOOORLLLD.
Thats awesome, I award you most creative poster of the day .
Thanks for being a good sport ; )
"Good night and good luck"
Sue, For evermore, that is a ridiculous accusation to make........you should apologize.
Ferraro's comments were hideous, and very offensive. They should be denounced by everyone, regardless of party or candidate affiliation.
Tommy
I am not going to apologize, I am an Obama supporter but to say Ferraro is racist is just not right. This is what she said earlier about what isbeing done to her
Ferraro said she has a 40-year history of opposing discrimination of all kinds, including race, and that she was outraged at criticism of her remarks by David Axelrod, Obama's chief media strategist, because he knows her and her record.
"David Axelrod, his campaign manager, has chose to spin this as a racist comment because everytime anybody makes a comment about race who is white — he did it with Bill Clinton, he was successful; he did it with (Pennsylvania governor and Clinton supporter) Ed Rendell, he was less successful; and he is certainly not going to be successful with me," Ferraro told CBS' "The Early Show." "He should have called me up ... He knows I'm not racist."
Sue, I have no interest in what campaign strategists say or don't say about Ferraro's comments, she is saying that Obama would not be where he is if he weren't black. How can you not say that is a highly charged racially motivated slur against Obama? He has not campaigned on race, nor made it an issue.
I don't know whether Ferraro is a racist or not, that is not for me to say, but her comments were and just who orchestrated this whole thing is the bigger issue. I don't trust the Clintons, they are "kitchen sinking" Obama now and it is absolutely one of the most hideous displays of crap that I have ever seen in any political campaign. They ought to be ashamed. I don't blame them, yet, for what came out of Ferraro's mouth, but as I said, I wouldn't be surprised if it's all some overall strategy to marginalize Obama and make her look more electable to the superdelegates........which is the only way she can win.
Let's hope, by god, she doesn't succeed.
I don't trust the Clintons, they are "kitchen sinking" Obama now and it is absolutely one of the most hideous displays of crap that I have ever seen in any political campaign
Tommy no one is "kitchen sinking" Obama except the media trying to divide America. This campaign has not been dirty. I have yet to see Willie Horton or a Bush tactic like he did to McCain in 2000.
Doris, With all due respect, I am so sick and tired of hearing people blaming the media, good god, the media is not making this stuff up. It is actually being said by Clinton herself, the McCain is better than Obama line, and these Ferraro comments - and the 3 am ad, and Bill's SC comments.
It's about time the media is stopped being blamed for the Clinton's antics, it is asinine.
This doesn't happen all that often, Tommy, but I have to completely agree with you. Your posts on this topic have been right on point, and very thoughtful.
Well done.
Oh ok, so it's not a racially motivated comment, it was just spin. gotcha.
What if someone in Obama's campaign had said "She's only where she's at today because she's a woman...she happens to be very lucky who she is...The country is "caught up in the concept" of the first female president."
Do you not see the disconnect here?
A closer analogy would be someone saying that Hillary has only achieved this level of electoral success because her husband got caught screwing around. Ironic, isn't it? I suspect that Doris and Sueld would be far less sanguine about such obnoxious comments than they seem to be about Ferraro's.
The sad thing is that Geraldine Ferraro has now cheapened her own legacy from being the first woman to be nominated for national office into one of being merely just another dishonest political hack who was more than willing to play the race card in order to smear an opponent.
Doris, I am not going to apologize.
An apology should be made to Geraldine Ferraro, she is not a racist. To suggest she is is fanning flames of racism.
(So help me, I am going to respond...)
Please find where I called Ferraro a racist, or belittled her public service. Feel free to quote me.
Oh, while you're at it, please show how questioning Ferraro's statements proves I "hate elderly women with cancer". Again, feel free to quote.
SUELD
What in gods name does elderly and cancer have to do with this????
And the woman who was fired from the Obama camp was not a "monster-ist," she just said what we are all thinking.
Seriously, even if she can't be fired, shouldn't Clinton "denounce and reject" her comments?
No Geraldine Ferrraro is an American hero.
I have a real problem with people overusing the word "hero", Doris. For example, people on the right (such as Sean Hannity and Mark Levin) refer to every person who served in the military as a "hero", whether they fought on the front lines and wone multiple Purple Hearts, or served as a file clerk who never left Fort Dix. And I believe that this overuse of the word "hero" denigrates the actions of those servicemen and women who risked their lives to save others. THAT is the only instance in which the word "hero" should be used, IMHO.
That being said, I agree that Geraldine Ferraro has had a long and illustrious career, during which she has done many things to help her fellow human beings. That makes her a good person and an excellent public servant, but does NOT make her a hero. And while she has done many good things over the course of her career, her recent remarks concerning Barack Obama were indeed racist, and she needs to apologize for them. Period.
That being said, I agree that Geraldine Ferraro has had a long and illustrious career, during which she has done many things to help her fellow human beings. That makes her a good person and an excellent public servant, but does NOT make her a hero. And while she has done many good things over the course of her career, her recent remarks concerning Barack Obama were indeed racist, and she needs to apologize for them. Period.
Wzwriter, well said and I totally agree!
"Second she is not paid or work for the campaign so how can she be fired?"
Don't know but she
Eh. I think you're all wet. :)
She's not much of a fallguy, considering they aren't making a move against her.
Oh I see what you mean.
yes, actually, to NOT make a move makes me think that she has carte blanche from up top.
And still getting the hideous message out. Yes. I get you.
It is horrible to think about.
And here is Olbermann discussing exactly that.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/12/countdown-geraldine-ferraros-racial-comments-about-barack-obama/
Again, what a conundrum for MMFA.
"Sueeld: Why specifically should MMfA 'go after' Olbermann?"
Sue may have her answer(s) tonight after Countdown.
Indeed. And it may be the first time when getting one's wish caused their head to explode.
I think MMfA should absolutely go after Olbermann for what he did last night, and what he plans to do tonight. Geraldine Ferraro, speaking as herself and in a paid, but private, setting gave her opinion on how Obama has gotten to the point he has. At no time had she introduced herself or represented herself as speaking for the Clinton campaign. Yet, her comments, when taken out of context and manipulated, could have sounded racist. Clinton has no reason to force Ferraro out of the fund raising arm of her campaign, yet Olbermann completely misrepresented the statements and attached them to the Clinton campaign with a promise he was going to skewer Clinton in a commentary tonight.
Okay, Ferraro's comments only became national news because the media chose to distort the entire episode, but put that aside. Why is Clinton accused of racism for the 3 am ad? At first the pundits just compared the ad to previous presidential campaigns where there was no race or gender card to play, but that didn't work, so the MEDIA itself analyzed the ad into being racist.
Further into accusations, why are they failing to bring to the surface the truth of what they are trying to do with some of their catch phrases. Obama saw their value, so he uses them in every one of his speeches now, too. Where is Olbermann's promise to skewer Obama for the sexist statements he is constantly making about Clinton. Can you conjur up the image of a well-suited man when the terms "kitchen sink" and "tea party" are used to describe the campaign strategy and political experience of one of the candidates? It's dirty politics, no matter how you view it. But, Obama is getting away with it because Olbermann and the media pundits he brings onto his show are feeding the tactic and giving it life.
Read any comment board on the web and posters are constantly using those same two sexist catch phrases, but only to describe Clinton because they simply wouldn't work against a man!
Rojo
How exactly have Ferraro's comments been taken out of context and manipulated?
How exactly has Olbermann misrepresented them?
How exactly has the media chosen to distort this episode?
WHO exactly has accused Clinton of racism for the FEAR MONGERING 3AM ad?
How was that ad ANY DIFFERENT than the sort of FEAR MONGERING TACTICS THAT DUBYA' RESORTED TO (under the direction of Turdblossom) IN 2000 and 2004?
Until you can honestly answer those questions YOU HAVE NO POINT, and you are merely spewing out emotionally-charged sycophantic gibberish in sad defense of a political candidate whose tactics are fast becoming indefensible.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I would agree the Olbermann is bias about his own network. I think team sports is to blame, he likely contracted the "Lombardi Syndrone" while at ESPN.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Wow! The media is making themselves the story again! What a shocker! :)
Maybe this is Mr. Matthew's way of asking for an invite next year.
If only the President put as much time into pre-war planning as he did his rehearsing his little song...
Don't really know where to put this question, but it does involve Matthews, so here goes.
Matthews was absolutely blasted here, and rightly so, for suggesting that Hillary Clinton is only running a successful campaign because she is a cheated on President's wife. http://mediamatters.org/items/200801090008
A Matthews Monitor was even started in reaction.
How will MMFA address Clinton finance committe member and fundraiser Geraldine Ferraro's comments that Obama is only running a successful campaign beacuse he is black?
My question doesn't involve Ferraro's comments as much as the conundrum MMFA must be in to address them.
Funny you should mention Keith Olbermann who is going to do a Special Commentary tonight targeting Hillary Clinton. Stay tuned...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/12/keith-olbermann-to-do-sp_n_91110.html
How will MMFA address Clinton finance committe member and fundraiser Geraldine Ferraro's comments that Obama is only running a successful campaign beacuse he is black?
It's not MMFA's mission to address issues like that, Watershed, unless the media omits important facts when reporting on them. So far, all the outlets I've seen have reported the story the same, so I've seen no signs of misinformation so far.
Now if a right-wing cybersewer NewsMax were to say that Ferraro made those remarks at a Klan meeting, THAT would be misinformation. But as long as the story is covered accurately, there IS no misinformation - and no need for MMFA to gete involved. See the difference??
There are many ways for this to get play here. I am just wondering if it will.
Torrance Daily Breeze, Fox News, etc Fails to Show History of Ferraro's Racist Statements
(Cause she's used this language before. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/11/204337/675/349/474608)
My point is that, as this story gets more traction, and it will, media spin (including from yes, CONSERVATIVE media outlets) will doubtless come into it. It already has. Can/will MMFA address this, or will it ignore it? I am curious.
In addition, Ferraro WORKS for Fox News. She is a regular commentator. See the potential for misinformation there?
Bill Hemmer Fails to Challenge Fellow Fox Employee Ferraro on Past Racist Statements
Just
givingBill Hemmer Fails to Challenge Fellow Fox Employee Ferraro on Past Racist Statements
Just
givingMagnolia, that bit of their mission statement can be taken one of two ways. It could be conservative misinformation from conservative commentators, or conservative misinformation that furthers a false idea in conservative circles.
In this case, since it comes from the Clinton camp, and Ferraro isn't conservative, I'd say they won't cover this unless a conservative commentator mis-characterizes what they said.
It may be a lie against Obama, but it's not conservative misinformation.
So whatever some liberal says, however offensive, goes unchallenged, but if a conservative made the same comments, they are worthy of challenging?
Offensive comments should always be challenged, Tommy. But MMFA is not the place where they should be challenged. MMFA's mission is to point out instanes where the media is spreading conservative misinformation. Other venues would be much more appropriate for challenging comments from either side of the political spectrum.
"they won't cover this unless a conservative commentator mis-characterizes what they said"
As her statement, in my opinion, is MASSIVE fodder for conservative misinformation, I truly cannot imagine his not being mis-characterized. But I truly don't know if MMFA will address it. Kudos if they do, shame if they don't.
DB,
You have acknowledged what we all know. MMFA is extremely biased and purely political. Will there be any thread regarding Ferraro's comment? Maybe but I doubt it. Will any of the many posters here denigrate Ferraro the way they did Hasslebeck in yesterday's thread? I doubt it.
What is interesting that the same argument Ferraro made about Obama can be used with Hillary. Would she be as popular if were not for Bill?
"You have acknowledged what we all know. MMFA is extremely biased and purely political. Will there be any thread regarding Ferraro's comment? Maybe but I doubt it. Will any of the many posters here denigrate Ferraro the way they did Hasslebeck in yesterday's thread? I doubt it."
I agree that they are biased, and they make no qualms about it. Have they claimed otherwise? Then they are being disingenuous. But they haven't, so they're not.
Purely political is another matter. It's not like they're sitting back scheming on how to take conservatives down. No, it's purely reactionary to members in the media making false assumptions and outright lying.
Ferraro is neither conservative nor was this conservative misinformation, because it came from the Clinton campaign. However, what she said was deplorable and I'll be the first to say she should shut her trap (of course, I'm not the first).
So yeah, MMfA is biased, but politically motivated? I have yet to see the evidence.
Watershed,
You make excellent points, (even if they're tripled). Ferraro's comments are very troubling, I am glad to see a stand up liberal denounce them.
No, what you said on the Hasselback thread was that Ferraro's comments were a "3 day issue with no lasting impact".
I stand by what I said.
In three different posts in the same thread you made the following comments:
Dems got a problem and they better figure out how to fix it
you can snipe at me with sarcasm all you want too, and further ignore the divisions within the Democratic party
But it is a problem within the Democratic party, in my opinion, that is far more than just primary political battling.
It sure looks to me like I described your statements accurately. That's the case you failed to support. In addition, the selection you quoted from me simply confirms what I told you I said. There was no contradiction. Whatever point you thought you were making appears to have fallen short.
Tommy is correct
All one has to do is look around these threads and see Libs sniping at Libs, this microcosm is all over the news in the form of campaign volunteers and the whacked out nonsense they spew
There is a division in the party
And yeah, before McTorture Supporter wins the 08 race we better figure out a solution
I'm not seeing that so much either in my personal life or even to a huge degree in the MMFA postings. Most of the non-conservatives have stated they will support either candidate. There are a small number of posters who have stated they couldn't support the other candidate, but they're in the minority. A passionate, harsh, prolific minority, but still the minority.
Beyond that, I simply don't think passionate opposition will be as common in the general electorate. If the Obama camp gets nastier I could see more people turning off, but as long as he keeps his cool and stays with an upbeat message I only see his support growing from where it now stands. I'm still very optimistic.
JJ - I'm glad someone here doesn't think I'm seriously off-base. I think a lot of the idea that the Democratic Party is in trouble is simply a limited sources perception. The media in general have reason to overhype conflict for several obvious reasons. Most simply want to attract viewers/listeners/readers. There are a significant number who genuinely are seeking to sow discord within the party and want to do damage to it.
I don't doubt for a moment that Lynn and Pearlene are honestly stating the opinions and attitudes of the people they know. The problem is that the people who want to talk about it, much like those who choose to post their opinions in forums like this, are those who are more interested and passionate. The people who are not as interested are also less inclined to get in a discussion. The large majority of likely Democratic voters simply are not very worked up about the bickering. I think a lot of people are becoming overwrought about the state of the party.
I think Tommy's referring to me, using "lame" to describe Ferarro's remarks. I don't use terms like "hideously offensive" very often, so it may have seemed like I was not hysterical enough in my reaction. I reject and renounce her comments, and can assure you that my body language is emphasizing my words.
I hope that satisfies even the most emotional and irrational of you.
And go easy on Watershed, who's probably exhausted from hating elderly women with cancer.
It is tiring. It's such a pervasive disease, and there are a lot of women in her age group.
Oh, the cancer. I misread it as you calling your old-cancerous-lady-hating a disease.
Never mind.
HOW DARE YOU !
She has already backed up her statements...on conservative FOX.
Here are the Google searches for reactions and articles on the matter. You think out of all of these, that there is NO conservative misinformation?
http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DMUS_enUS206US207&q=ferraro+Fox+News&um=1&hl=en&ncl=1141996068&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=more-results&cd=1
So, hypothetically, beacuse I haven't the time to read through every reaction like MMFA does, if a conservative mis-characterizes Ferraro's statement (Say, Limbaugh says, "Dems think black people have an advantage! See, there is NO racism!"), will it be covered here? See the conundrum?
I know hypotheticals are lame, but I cannot imagine some on the right running HARD with this.
Exactly. Not to challenge this, or not to show a history of racist comments by Ferraro, is by definition misinformation. If done by conservative papers, radio, tv or websites, it is by definition CONSERVATIVE misinformation.
Again, will it be shown here? depending on how they play this, I think this could be, dare I say it, a watershed moment for MMFA.
"I'm sure it was an enjoyable get-together between journalists and the people they're charged with covering."
I'm sure it was a "furrowing up leg" had by all.
Tim Russert and Andrea Mitchell have been Bush cheerleaders for years.
So the answer is "no." Matthews will not start a fight with Bush lovers' Russert & Mitchell over a party they attended where Bush made a fool of himself.
Besides, I'm sure Russert & Mitchell thought Bush's "performance" was genuinely funny.
I'm pretty sure that was Matthews' point, to make Russert look bad. I don't believe there are a lot of warm relations between the two.
That the comments came from Matthews though, is somewhat laughable. Guess he didn't get an invite.
God Bless Keith Olbermann.
Let's not forget Matthews and his thrilling moments with Bush at the White House Christmas Party:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512200010?f=s_search