The readers of No Quarter understand that the Free Press is one of the institutions that helped take America from a fledgling group of colonies and in just a little over 230 years transform us into one of the great empires in history. We are also aware that that particular institution is in as deep a decline as is our nation. The two go hand in hand.

The main steam media (MSM) let all of us down in this election season and if Barack Obama is not up to the job, they will be largely responsible for helping continue the American decline that the Bush team has so skillfully worked on for the last eight years.

So today, when the Washington Post via their ombudsman admits they were a bit Pro-Obama, it does not make me feel better. The wounds are too deep for an I told you so to clot the bleeding. Nope, after reading the piece from Deborah Howell, I am just even more pissed off.

Read the story here

It’s not like this is news to us.

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board’s endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors — like most of the national news media — found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.

The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain’s 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama’s battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that.

And the Post is not alone. Newsweek’s Meacham and Thomas admitted this week to Charley Rose they have been troubled a bit by the somewhat creepy nature of Obama’s singular being and his hold on his devoted followers. Tom Brokaw opined that he really does not know much at all about our President-elect.

Predictably, now that the man has been elected, the MSM will admit the error of their ways as a way to hedge their bets, just in case things go south. Then they can puff up their chests and say they were right all along. The problem is, no one is buying it anymore. Even many of those who have consumed copious amounts of “Barry Berry Kool Aid” admit the MSM has been in the tank from day one.

The mea culpas are too late, the damage is done. Whatever shred of credibility the MSM once had is as dead and buried as Tim Russert.

The MSM must now be looked upon for entertainment purposes only. Those interested in uncovering the truth must look elsewhere. You can look around the net, there is a lot out there, but who knows what to trust? You can stick with us at No Quarter, our resources are meager, we have but time and our hearts to give, but we will be keep digging. We won’t get everything right, but we will keep an open mind and look at both sides of everything.

Most importantly do not keep your beliefs to yourself. Citizen silence can kill great nations. Keep spreading the word. Door to door, e-mail to e-mail, blog to blog. It is the only way to combat a free press that is no longer free.

Egland had this to say:

Last weekend, Barack Obama dazzled crowds in Europe. Discussing international security, he spoke eloquently about the need for an American-European partnership to defeat terrorism.

In Paris, he said that “terrorism cannot be solved by any one country alone”, and that America should establish partnerships. In Berlin, he expressed hope that Europeans and Americans “can join in a new and global partnershipto dismantle the networks” of terrorists worldwide.

Eglin outlines a problem with Obama’s speeches, we already have a counterterrorism partnership with the European Union.

Obama only needed to hold one meeting, yet he hasn’t. Senator Obama said this during a debate hosted by MSNBC with Tim Russert and Brian Williams. Here is Russert’s question and Obama’s answer:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, I want you to respond to not holding oversight for your subcommittee. But also, do you reserve a right as American president to go back into Iraq, once you have withdrawn, with sizable troops in order to quell any kind of insurrection or civil war?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven’t had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.

Eglin has more on the partnership, one that was so urgently needed, post 9/11. Here are his thoughts on that:

The urgency of this partnership became clear after investigators discovered that a cell in Hamburg, Germany, had helped in Al Qaeda’s attacks against America on Sept. 11, 2001. After bombings in Madrid and London, the partnership expanded.

Since then the number of attacks and plots aimed at our European allies has dropped. And here in the United States, of course, Al Qaeda has been unable to attack since 9/11.

The major continues by discussing the challenges the intelligence community and others had in finding the source of the “new” bombs. He says the following on those challenges:

One challenge we had was to find where the research and testing of new bombs was taking place. Eventually, American intelligence and European law enforcement officials discovered together that much of the work was being done outside Iraq with the results transmitted via the Internet.

Acting on this information, the police in France arrested electrical engineering students at a French university who had been recruited by their local mosque leaders. After these arrests, American tactical countermeasures and improvements in technology became more effective and the number of casualties from certain types of explosives declined.

Such close collaboration between the United States and France against terrorist cells in Iraq may surprise those accustomed to digesting easy sound bites of “cowboy diplomacy” and “unilateralism.” But the partnership is real, and not just with France.

The partnership does indeed include other countries in the European Union (EU). One of these other countrie is Germany. Eglin said this about Germany and its efforts to combat terrorism. Here are his words:

The Germans contribute as well. I also worked on counterterrorism operations in southern Europe to stop a plot against American interests there. Thanks to German intelligence and law enforcement officials, a planned attack modeled on the 1983 truck bombing against U.S. marines in Lebanon - but several times larger - never happened.

Major Eglin tells us about diplomatic efforts at the highest levels:

Such tactical success is only possible after effective diplomatic engagement at the highest levels. Agreements between the United States and Europe, like the Declaration on Combating Terrorism and the Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, have helped enormously. And for years, NATO, the Group of 8 industrialized nations, and other multilateral organizations have contributed as well.

The major has this to say about testimony that was given prior to Obama entering the US Senate:

In 2004, J. Cofer Black, the State Department’s coordinator for counterterrorism, testified about the success of these partnerships before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s subcommittee on European affairs.

He has this criticism to offer about Obama. His criticism once again points out either, 1) his inexperience or 2) his lack of interest and inability to educate himself on his job as a senator. Eglin said this:

Had Obama, who now heads that subcommittee, read the transcripts from the meeting, which took place before he came to office, or had he held a similar hearing, he might have known that the partnerships he called for last week already exist.

The major says it best about Obama’s credibility as a potential commander-in-chief. He says this:

After years of investment and sacrifice, Americans and Europeans deserve accurate information about our efforts to defeat international terrorism, especially from a prospective commander in chief.

And another voice speaks out questioning Obama’s “qualification” to be our next president.

Glenn Greenwald offers a clever and devastating analysis of Olbermann’s malady with respect to FISA:

On January 31 of this year, Keith Olbermann donned his most serious face and most indignant voice tone to rail against George Bush for supporting telecom immunity and revisions to FISA. In a 10-minute “Special Comment,” the MSNBC star condemned Bush for wanting to “retroactively immunize corporate criminals,” and said that telecom immnity is “an ex post facto law, which would clear the phone giants from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with [Bush's] illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass email.”

Olbermann added that telecom amnesty was a “shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism — the merged efforts of government and corporations that answer to no government.” Noting the numerous telecom lobbyists connected to the Bush administration, Olbermann said:
This is no longer just a farce in which protecting telecoms is dressed up as protecting us from terrorists conference cells. Now it begins to look like the bureaucrats of the Third Reich, trying to protect the Krupp family, the industrial giants, re-writing the laws of Germany for their benefit.

. . . .Last night, Olbermann invited Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter onto his show to discuss Obama’s support for the FISA and telecom amnesty bill (video of the segment is here ). There wasn’t a syllable uttered about “immunizing corporate criminals” or “textbook examples of Fascism” or the Third Reich. There wasn’t a word of rational criticism of the bill either. Instead, the two media stars jointly hailed Obama’s bravery and strength — as evidenced by his “standing up to the left” in order to support this important centrist FISA compromise . . . .

Leave aside the fact that Jonathan Alter, desperate to defend Obama, doesn’t have the slightest idea of what he’s talking about. How can a bill which increases the President’s authority to eavesdrop with no warrants over the current FISA law possibly be described as a restoration of the Fourth Amendment? That would be like describing a new law banning anti-war speech as a restoration of the First Amendment.

As Jim Dempsey and Marty Lederman both note, not even the nation’s most foremost FISA experts really know the full extent to which this bill allows new warrantless spying. Obviously, Jonathan Alter has no idea what he’s saying, but nonetheless decrees that this bill — now that Obama supports it — restores the Fourth Amendment. Those are the Orwellian lengths to which people like Olbermann and Alter are apparently willing to go in order to offer their blind devotion to Barack Obama.

Greenwald’s complete post (click here) is worth your time. And Olbermann? Well, he apparently is two ketchup packets shy of pitching a fit and is under extreme emotional distress as he comes to grip with the reality that he is not in the running to replace Timmy Russert. Poor Keith. Looks like he is auditioning to be the propaganda minister for a Brack Obama reign. If suspending critical thinking and indulging in hyperbole are requisite skills then Olbermann has the job nailed.

“Last week, the New York Times outed a CIA agent — I’m not going to mention his name — who interrogated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,” said O’Reilly. “The CIA asked the New York Times not to do that, it obviously puts the CIA agent in danger because al Qaeda knows who he is, and they say, ‘Well, we’ll out anybody unless they’re under cover.’”

The Times added an Editor’s Note to the story following its initial publication, explaining why they had revealed the interrogator’s name even though the CIA asked them not to do so. “After discussion with agency officials and a lawyer for Mr. Martinez, the newspaper declined the request, noting that Mr. Martinez had never worked under cover. … The newspaper seriously considered the requests from Mr. Martinez and the agency. But in view of the experience of other government employees who have been named publicly in books and published articles or who have themselves chosen to go public, the newspaper made the decision to print the name.”

“The New York Times has a double standard,” Rove replied to O’Reilly. “It was deeply concerned when Richard Armitage outed Valerie Plame. Of course, they were only concerned until the point that it became apparent it was Richard Armitage, not Karl Rove.”

Gee Karl. Early onset Alzheimer’s? Don’t you remember what you told Tim Russert and Chris Matthews?

Fair game. You said that a real undercover CIA officer was fair game for political attacks. And how about Matt Cooper and Robert Novak?

– Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper said, “Karl Rove told me about Valerie Plame’s identity on July 11, 2003. I called him because Ambassador Wilson [Plame’s husband] was in the news that week. I didn’t know Ambassador Wilson even had a wife until I talked to Karl Rove.”

– A week prior to publishing his column which outed Plame, Robert Novak spoke with Rove. Novak brought up Plame’s role at the CIA, and Rove confirmed that Plame worked at the CIA: “I heard that too,” said Rove.

You did not get it then and you do not get it now. The current CIA officer in question, Deuce Martinez, is not undercover. He is an analyst working in an overt (i.e., uncovered) job. His identity is not a secret. His future success in the CIA does not depend on going to work overseas.

And the notion that he is at danger from Al Qaeda is laughable. Why? Because, the CIA despite all of its flaws and shortcomings, has done a good job of killing and capturing key Al Qaeda operatives. They are a decimated organization. (See Marc Sageman for more on this.) It does not have the ability to send a hit team to track down Deuce Martinez. Of course, Bill O’Reilly and Karl Rove did not give a shit about a genuine risk to Valerie Plame back in 2003. At that time, Al Qaeda actually did threaten to kill her. And Valerie was left on her own to figure out how to protect herself and her family.

Now, even though Deuce was not undercover, the fact that the CIA requested the NY Times not print his name should have been taken seriously. The NY Times just proved that it has the scruples of Robert Novak, who also rejected several pleas from the CIA to not print Valerie’s name.

But there is a big difference between exposing an undercover CIA officer like Valerie, who had a network of spies overseas, and an overt analyst. The good news is that the recent revelations by Bush’s former press secretary, Scott McClellan, seals the deal for the Wilson’s law suit against Karl Rove and others. McClellan has stated flatly that Rove lied about his role in outing Valerie Plame. If that case goes to trial Mr. Rove will have a chance to explain why it is okay to out an undercover officer but not okay to write about an officer who is working in the open. I still want a frog march.

Network sources told Page Six Olbermann was furious last week when MSNBC didn’t get him a first-class ticket to Washington, DC, for a private service honoring the “Meet the Press” anchor’s passing.

The source said Olbermann was screaming into the phone on Tuesday because there were no first-class train tickets available for that day, and he wanted to make sure he would ride first-class on Wednesday. According to the source, Olbermann berated a staffer who was coordinating Wednesday’s Kennedy Center memorial by yelling, “You better hope to God there is a first-class train ticket tomorrow.”

That prompts us, once again, to write.

A Comment for Keith

Most people reserve a portion of civility for solemn events. You know, births, deaths. Usually people in polite society, or at least those pretending to polite society, find a way to take some time and recognize that sometimes it IS about someone else.

Unless you’re Keith Olbermann. Then it’s all about you. Always about you.

Keith, what made you think having a first class TRAIN ticket was your due for attending a colleague’s MEMORIAL? Most people would be reflecting on their friend and thinking of the family - and just happy to be alive to attend a memorial. Not screeching and threatening a staffer over a damn first-class train ticket.

That must be one dream train car. Maybe it has massage therapists inside or maybe lots of merlot and cute young chicks who don’t know the real you. Or maybe it’s just filled with mirrors so you can practice your remorseful face. That probably takes you a while. I can see where a pocket mirror wouldn’t cut it either. Other riders might see you holding a little mirror, trying to fit your whole mug into it, and think you were just another narcissist.

And that cannot be tolerated, sir. You are NOT just another narcissist. You are in a league of your own. And that means every trip must be first class, by god. Particularly if you are en route to a place where you might be expected to act like a human. We understand you need time and privacy to practice.

But I guess you just can’t pull off the “human thing” if you have to ride with other, more ordinary, humans. So, you didn’t show at the private ceremony. But don’t worry, I’m sure your absence was not a terrible loss. And it must have been a relief to you, Keith, not to have to muster up a facade of sorrow and empathy, because we’ve certainly never seen you show THOSE emotions. Or maybe, just maybe, you actually cared for your colleague, but you simply couldn’t stop your pathological narcissism, sense of entitlement and quite possibly a strong desire for ketchup.

EIther way, you Keith, are a total schmuck.

Although your handlers snap that these events never happened and that everything is a lie, there’s a lesson here for you regardless. When people are likely to believe stories like this about you, it says much more about you than about them. If your reputation as a journalist and human being was even a shade better, people would brush off these stories as totally out of character. Your problem is they are NOT out of character based on the face you’ve shown to the world in any variety of jobs, “special comments” and anecdotes about you personally.

You’ve brought this on yourself. Real or not, people think these stories could easily be true. And Keith, that’s a problem YOU made.

Now that we know Tom Brokaw will be taking over Meet the Press, it’s time for you to pack up. Time to move on. Time to resign, Keith. Go away. Jon Stewart is so much funnier than you anyway.

Man up, Keith. If you did this, you owe several people an abject apology. If this didn’t actually happen, change yourself so that people aren’t so willing to believe you’d scream at someone for not getting you a first class train ticket to a colleague’s private memorial service.

The New Yorker this week profiles the not-so-special political commentator, Keith Olbermann. A few money quotes:

Olbermann, who is six feet three and a half, once bumped his head while leaping into a subway car; it permanently upset his equilibrium, which makes driving a trial. (He says he loses depth perception at speeds greater than fifteen miles per hour.)

I am sorry to hear that his equilibrium was upset by his own impetuous actions. But frankly, his perception is not any better sitting down and staying still. In fact, it may be worse. Equilibrium is not a word I have ever associated with Keith Olbermann. Slanted and off-balanced are. Now at least, we know why. As for trying, Olbermann tries our patience five nights a week and offends our sensibilities with every word he utters.

Olbermann’s tenure at ESPN was characteristically contentious. One of his co-anchors, Suzy Kolber, has said that Olbermann was sometimes so overbearing that she would lock herself in the bathroom and cry. Another colleague, Mike Soltys, has said that when Olbermann left the network, in 1997, “he didn’t burn bridges here—he napalmed them.”

Overbearing is apt and his misogyny is nothing new. If I were to cry, it would be over the fact that he is killing American journalism by pretending to be Edward R. Murrow, whom he is not. And in terms of the death of the US Democratic Party, Olbermann is simply Agent Orange, a defoliant that has stripped bare what was once a vibrant political party, now likely headed for death because of the toxicity of pundits like Mr. Olbermann.

Once again, Olbermann left a job unhappily, returning to sportscasting at Fox Sports. He was subsequently fired, and the remainder of his contract was paid off. (“I fired him,” Rupert Murdoch said recently. “He’s crazy.”)

It won’t be the last time he is fired. We are working on repeating on yet another pink slip for Mr. Olbermann.

The Olbermann-O’Reilly feud, which is wholly Olbermann’s creation, began with a wisecrack in 2003, the first year of “Countdown.” It evolved after Olbermann instituted a farcical segment called “The Worst Person in the World,” in which O’Reilly, depicted as a pompous buffoon, was regularly cited. O’Reilly, the biggest draw of the highest-rated cable-news network, could only lose by engaging with Olbermann, but he could not resist. Refusing to mention Olbermann by name, he sponsored a petition drive to have him replaced, and eventually began to aim on-air broadsides against NBC’s parent company, General Electric, and its chairman, Jeffrey Immelt. “If my child were killed in Iraq, I would blame the likes of Jeffrey Immelt,” O’Reilly asserted in April, citing G.E.’s business relationship with Iran. (The company began phasing out its contracts there in 2005.) This only encouraged Olbermann, who subjected Bill-O (as Olbermann calls him) to near-daily barrages of acid caricature. Instead of using video clips of O’Reilly for his routines, Olbermann began voicing O’Reilly’s words himself, in a demonic mimicry of the Ted Baxter character on “The Mary Tyler Moore Show.”

Demonic is a good adjective to describe Mr. Olbermann. Asinine and pedantic are others.

Olbermann’s success, like O’Reilly’s, is evidence of viewer cocooning—the inclination to seek out programming that reinforces one’s own firmly held political views. “People want to identify,” Griffin says. “They want the shortcut. ‘Wow, that guy’s smart. I get him.’ In this crazy world of so much information, you look for places where you identify, or you see where you fit into the spectrum, because you get all this information all day long.”

In the end, all Keith Olbermann will have his DailyKos audience, hardly the most progressive element in the United States and inherently anti-democratic. Honestly, who encourages voters to disrupt the democratic process by encouraging Democrats to cross over and vote for Mitt Romney in the Michigan Republican Primary? Only the lunacy of the DailyKos. It is not a tactic I can ever support. It goes against the entire concept of democracy and strikes at one of the core values of Western Civilization, the rights of conscience inalienable.

Some might find Olbermann’s frequent invocation of Murrow, and, especially, his appropriation of Murrow’s sign-off, wildly presumptuous.

That and utterly delusional.

Asked about the prospect of an Olbermann reign at “CBS Evening News,” Sandy Socolow, Walter Cronkite’s final executive producer, responded emphatically. “Oh, no, no, no, he’s not a newsman,” Socolow said. “He’s not a reporter. I’ve never seen anything that he’s done that was original, in terms of the information. It’s all derivative. I like him, I agree with his perspective, and I think he’s very, very good on television. But he’s not a newsman.” Socolow added, “Ten years ago, if he had done at CBS what he does every day on the air at MSNBC, he would have been fired by the end of the day.”

Ditto.

As Russert put it to me shortly before his death, “Keith and I have each carved out our roles in this vast information spectrum.” He continued, “What cable emphasizes, more and more, is opinion, or even advocacy. Whether it’s Bill O’Reilly or Keith Olbermann or Lou Dobbs, that’s what that particular platform or venue does. It’s not what I do. What I do is different. I try very, very hard not to come up and say to people, ‘This is what I believe,’ or ‘This is good,’ or ‘This is bad.’ But, rather, ‘This is what I’m learning in my reporting,’ or ‘This is what my analysis shows based on my reporting.’ And as long as I can do that I’m very, very comfortable. And nobody has asked me to do anything but that.”

Yes, it is opinion but it is being packaged as news and fact. That is not only disingenuous but immoral. And it has poisoned political discourse in the United States, radicalizing elements on both sides. As Fox News caters to the right, MSNBC caters to the left. Vice President Cheney requires that his hotel rooms have Fox on when he enters the room. How’s that for fair and balanced news sourcing? Look at the By The Fault blogroll, there are news sources from over 50 countries offering a wide perspective of news and events.

In cable news, the dominant personality puts an identifying stamp on the entire organization. The stamp at MSNBC is indisputably that of Keith Olbermann.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Olbermann says that he began the campaign season determined to remain neutral on the Democratic race, although he was plainly friendly with the Clintons. (During an interview with Bill Clinton in 2006, Olbermann handed the former President a personal donation to the Clinton Foundation.) Olbermann liked Obama, but he believed, at first, that he would not make a strong candidate. As the tide began to turn Obama’s way, Olbermann began to grow impatient with Clinton surrogates’ attacks on Obama, and, seemingly, with the persistence of the candidate herself. As Obama neared apparent assurance of the nomination, Olbermann began to raise questions about Clinton’s arithmetic on the popular vote, about her wanting to change the rules regarding the Florida and Michigan primaries, about why she didn’t just do the right thing and get out.

But attacks on Clinton, including overtly misogynistic comments on MSNBC, raised not but an eyebrow. Hypocrisy is hard to swallow.

Brokaw says he sometimes feels that he has been cast in the role of hall monitor at NBC News; if so, his charges have kept him busy. The day after the New Hampshire primary, Matthews asserted that Hillary Clinton owed her election as senator to public sympathy for her in light of her husband’s sexual peccadilloes. “It was completely out of line,” Brokaw says. “And Keith took it to another level” with his “shut the hell up” commentary.

If Brokaw is the hall monitor, then Olbermann is certainly the playground bully. But where’s the principal or at the very least an adult?

In March, after Geraldine Ferraro said that Obama would not be where he is if he were not a black man, Olbermann issued a Special Comment that was aimed expressly at Clinton’s advisers (and their countenancing of Ferraro’s “cheap, ignorant, vile racism”) but that struck Clinton nonetheless. “Voluntarily or inadvertently,” Olbermann said, addressing Clinton directly, “you are still awash in this filth.”

That moment would have marked the nadir of Olbermann’s career as a pundit but for the fact of what was still yet to come.

At MSNBC, Phil Griffin was worried, and with good reason. The average “Countdown” viewer is fifty-nine years old, and forty-five per cent of the viewers are women, presumably Democratic—a fair description of a Hillary Clinton supporter. Griffin believed that Olbermann was beginning to alienate his core audience, and asked him to ease up a bit on Clinton, and possibly even make some conciliatory gesture to the Clinton camp. Olbermann was offended by the suggestion. “I can’t do that!” he says, recalling that conversation. “Me doing a commentary against my own opinion is pandering. Black and white. And I’m not going to do it. Would I pull back a little bit, or think long and hard about whether or not I want to knowingly alienate part of the audience? Yeah. And I did. I mean, I held fire on Senator Clinton for quite a while after she began to really scare me, with some of these tactics.”

You are hardly believable any more. You are caricature, a parody of singular nothingness. An empty suit like your would be messiah.

For another not-so-complimentary view, check out

From my blog, By The Fault.

WOE IS ME!
WOE IS ME!
ABC IS MEAN!

Well, yeah.  ABC was mean to Obama.  They treated him like, dare I say it, the frontrunner.  They treated him like they are going to treat him every day from now until November.  You saw him, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, get the same sort of treatment Clinton has been getting from day one, and your feelings are hurt.  Why?  Because it’s not fair?  Hell no.  Not a darned one of you cared a whit about “fair” when the shoe was on the other foot.  No.  You’re offended because you thought, for what reason I can not even imagine, that the media would continue to give Obama the same ride they always give McCain.  And under it all, in the backs of your heads, you are finally acknowledging the echoes of what Clinton supporters have told you all along - that the media would turn on Obama once Clinton was out of the way, and the free ride would be over.

What do I mean?  Why don’t you take the jump and find out.

Did you hate Stephanopolous and ABC last August, when they warmed Obama up and threw HIM, not Clinton the first question about her negative, and premised the whole thing with a Karl Rove quote:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me turn now to the second question I raised, the topic question about Senator Clinton. And outgoing White House counsel Karl Rove opined on that this week. He was on Rush Limbaugh. Here’s what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KARL ROVE: There is no front-runner who has entered the primary season with negatives as high as she has in the history of modern polling. She’s going into the general election with, depending on what poll you’re looking at, in the high forties on the negative side and just below that on the positive side.

And there’s nobody who’s ever won the presidency who started out in that kind of position.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, Senator Obama, I know you’re loathe to agree with Karl Rove on just about anything.

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: I am.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the Associated Press this week wrote an article. They talked to 40 Democratic activists and officeholders across the country. It led to the series of headlines across the country: “Democrats worry Clinton may weigh down lesser candidates”; “Democrats worry Clinton may hurt the rest of the ticket.”

Are they right to be worried?

Did Clinton at least get the follow up?  Nope, the next question was also to Obama:

But when you say that, are you saying that Senator Clinton is part of the failed politics of Washington, or not?

after he answered it, Stephanopolous let Edwards chime in:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So the answer is yes?

OBAMA: The answer is: I would not be running if I did not believe that I was the best person to do this.

EDWARDS: Well, let me just say — I have a slightly different view. Here’s what I believe. I think we were out of power in the Congress for 13 years. In November of 2006, the Democrats took over the Congress again. I think there was a reason for that. Because the Democrats in November of 2006 stood for change.

America wants change in the most serious way. And if we become the party of status quo in 2008, that’s a loser.

followed by more follow-up, TO EDWARDS:

And you’re seeing that Senator Clinton is not?

Clinton was never asked to address the question.  Instead, the next question to her was a shift, based on something Edwards said, and clearly another shot at her:

EDWARDS: Senator Obama is not taking it in this campaign. I applaud him for that. And I’ve said: Why don’t we all make an absolutely clear statement that we are the Democratic Party; we’re the party of the people; we are not the party of Washington insiders?

And we can say it clearly and unequivocally, by saying we will never take another dime from a Washington lobbyist.

(APPLAUSE)

I’ve asked the other candidates to join me in that.

(APPLAUSE)

And at least, until now, Senator Clinton’s not done it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, will you do it?

and he stayed on the attack:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton…

CLINTON: So I’m looking forward to going up against whoever the Republicans nominate.

(APPLAUSE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about this point, though, that Senator Edwards raises? He says the fact that you’re taking money from lobbyists symbolizes that you’re part of the status quo, part of the failed politics of Washington.

and the follow-up?  Senator Edwards, please keep attacking Senator Clinton:

Back to you, Senator. She says the distinction is artificial.

But wait, you might say, the real problem last night was trivial questions.  Newsflash, folks, that is nothing new:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me move on now. We’ve got a question — we’ve got an e-mail question from Seth Ford of South Jordan, Utah.

And he said, “My question is to understand each candidates’ view of a personal God. Do they believe that, through the power of prayer, disasters like Hurricane Katrina or the Minnesota bridge collapse could have been prevented or lessened?”

I’d like each of you to answer it. Let me start with you, Senator Clinton.

Now look at this exchange, then find a SINGLE DEBATE where any other candidate was asked this sort of follow-up question:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, I, too, regret giving George Bush the authority that he misused and abused. It was a very difficult decision, and I tried to weigh it as carefully as possible, talking to a lot of different people and being assured, both publicly and privately, by President Bush and the people close to him that they would use the authority to go in and get inspectors and try to find out if there were weapons of mass destruction and pursue diplomacy.

So, you know, looking back on it, I wouldn’t have voted that way again, certainly, because obviously President Bush had no intention of doing what he said he was going to do. And obviously for me that is a great regret.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But did you tell the whole truth when discussing it?

CLINTON: Well, as I saw it, yes, you know, similar to John. You know, when the president of the United States says, as he said publicly, and then as people around him said privately over and over again, “We’re going to use this authority to get inspectors back in, “We’re going to go to the United Nations,” you know, at some point, you do have to make that evaluation.

How many people here griped about ABC or Stephanopolous then? Did we start a boycott then?  

It wasn’t over, there, by the way.  All the debates until the last one have been huge pile-ons, and the candidates and moderators have been in it together.

In the October 30, 2007, debate, Tim Russert and Brian Williams went after Clinton, and invited the other candidates to do it too (and by the way, introduced the first use of the “Rocky” theme to the race by Obama, not Clinton, for those who piled on with the ridicule lately):

You gave an interview to the New York Times, over the weekend, pledging in it to be more aggressive, to be tougher in your campaign against your chief rival for the nomination, the leader among Democrats so far, Senator Clinton, who is here next to you tonight.

To that end, Senator, you said that Senator Clinton was trying to sound Republican, trying to vote Republican on national security issues.

WILLIAMS:  And that was, quote, “bad for the country and ultimately bad for the Democrats.”  That is a strong charge, as you’re aware.  Specifically, what are the issues where you, Senator Obama, and Senator Clinton have differed, where you think she has sounded or voted like a Republican?

OBAMA:  Well, first of all, I think some of this stuff gets over-hyped.  In fact, I think this has been the most hyped fight since Rocky fought Apollo Creed, although the amazing thing is, I’m Rocky in this situation.    

The next question invited Edwards to attack Clinton:

Senator Edwards, you issued a press release, your campaign, and the headline is “Edwards to Clinton: American people deserve the truth, not more double-talk on Iran.”What double-talk are you suggesting that Senator Clinton has been engaging in on Iran?

Here is a later question from Russert.  On its face it looks innocuous. Too bad the whole thing is a sham:

Senator Clinton, elsewhere in the region, let’s talk

about Iraq.  One of your military advisers, retired Lieutenant General

Claudia Kennedy, while campaigning for you in New Hampshire, was

recently quoted saying, quote, “I don’t oppose the war.  I have never

heard Senator Clinton say `I oppose the war.’”

Senator Clinton, do you oppose the war in Iraq?

Why do I say it’s a sham?  I’ll let Bob Sommersby tell you:

As it turns out, Russert was working extra hard to frame that insinuative question. Kennedy’s “recent” statement was made on October 6, and it was instantly disavowed, that same day, by Clinton and her campaign. (Spokesman Blake Zeff, in the October 7 New York Daily News: “Sen. Clinton has made it repeatedly clear that she opposes the war and that if George Bush doesn’t end it, she will, She has voted against funding for the war and has offered a clear plan for bringing our troops home.’”) But so what? Twenty-four days later, Russert could be found on stage, calling this a “recent” statement and pretending there was something troubling here–something slippery that needed to be resolved.

So what did Kennedy actually say that led to the question?  I’m glad you asked, because it was most definitely NOT what Russert insinuated:

KATZ (10/7/07): A top military supporter of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid says she doesn’t “oppose” the Iraq war–and neither does Clinton.

Oh yes, she does, Team Clinton said yesterday, rushing to overrule its own backer.

“I have not ever heard [Clinton] say, ‘I oppose the war,’ ” retired Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, the first woman promoted to three-star Army general, told the Manchester, N.H., Union-Leader newspaper as she visited the early-voting state to stump for the New York senator.

“I’ve heard her say that we need to begin withdrawal…I’ve heard her say we need to create a regional stabilizing group by allies, by leaders in the world and by all of the states that are bordering Iraq,” Kennedy continued.

“That’s a much more sophisticated thing than saying, ‘I oppose the war.’”

Kennedy’s statements could be seen as a marked break in the tightly scripted campaign helmed by Clinton, who voted to invade Iraq but later said the Bush administration had deceived Congress and the public about the conflict.

“Sen. Clinton has made it repeatedly clear that she opposes the war and that if George Bush doesn’t end it, she will,” spokesman Blake Zeff said. “She has voted against funding for the war and has offered a clear plan for bringing our troops home.’”

And how did Russert and Williams follow it up?  By inviting Obama and Edwards to pile on to his lie:

Senator Obama, was Senator Clinton’s answer to the opposition of the Iraq war question consistent, in your view?

Senator Edwards, same question.

After that debacle, a commercial break.  Where did they pick up after the break? Again, on attack against Clinton.  Here was the first post-commercial question:

And we’re going to start with another subject at the top of this segment.

Senator Clinton, it will go to you.  It speaks to electability.

Earlier this month, Republican presidential frontrunner, Rudolph Giuliani, said this about you, quote, “I don’t know Hillary’s experience.  She’s never run a city.  She’s never run a state.  She’s never run a business.  She’s never met a payroll.  She’s never been responsible for the safety and security of millions of people, much less, even hundreds of people.

“So I’m trying to figure out where the experience is here,”  end of quote.

Senator, how do you respond to the former mayor of New York?

Then Russert followed it up with another question to Clinton, one he knew was disingenuous, since he knew Clinton could not control release of National Archives documents:

Senator Clinton, I’d like to follow up, because in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave?

Because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012.

Was this a continuous attack on Clinton, and an invitation to all the other candidates to pile on?  Let’s look at some more questions to find out.  How about this one?

Senator Biden, you said recently, “While Mrs. Clinton was meeting socially with the prime minister of a country, I was sitting down and negotiating with them.  I know my experience is considerably deeper and more relevant.”

Do you stand by that quote, and is your inference that she is less qualified than you to be president?

But wait, it gets worse.  From here Russert switched the debate to Social Security, and premised the entire segment on a lie about Clinton:

Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up which goes to the issue of credibility.  You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you would consider taxing, lifting the cap from $97,500, taxing that, raising more money for Social Security.  You said, quote, “It’s a no.”  I asked you the same question in New Hampshire, and you said “no.”

Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman, a teacher, and had a conversation with him saying, “I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000.”  You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying that.

Why do you have one public position and one private position?

Let’s follow Bob Sommersby back to the New Hampshire debate to see if Russert’s question had any basis in fact, shall we?

At that gruesome New Hampshire debate, Clinton didn’t “say no” to raising the Social Security cap; she said she wouldn’t endorse any option until a bipartisan commission was formed. Sorry, but Russert was being baldly disingenuous here (as always). Here’s the question His Greatness had asked at that earlier debate:

   RUSSERT (9/26/07): Senator Clinton, would you be in favor of saying to the American people? “I’m going to tax your income. I’m not going to cap at $97,500. Everyone, even if you’re a millionaire, is going to pay Social Security tax on every cent they make.”

According to Russert’s question this past Tuesday night, Clinton “said no” to this proposal. But here’s what actually had transpired, though Russert had seemed to forget:

   CLINTON (9/26/07, continuing directly): Well, Tim, let me tell you what I think about this because I know this is a particular concern of yours. But I want to make three points very briefly.

   First, I do think that it’s important to talk about fiscal responsibility. You know, when my husband left office after moving us toward a balanced budget and a surplus, we had a plan to make Social Security solvent until 2055. Now, because of the return to deficits, we’ve lost 14 years of solvency. It’s now projected to be solvent until 2041. Getting back on a path of fiscal responsibility is absolutely essential.

   Number two, I think we do need another bipartisan process. You described what happened in ‘83. It took presidential leadership, and it took the relationship between the White House and Capitol Hill to reach the kind of resolution that was discussed.

   And I think that has to be what happens again, but with a president who is dedicated to Social Security, unlike our current president, who has never liked Social Security. You can go back and see when he first ran for Congress he was dissing Social Security. So when I’m president, I will do everything to protect and preserve Social Security so we can have that kind of bipartisanship.

   And finally, then you can look in the context of fiscal responsibility and of a bipartisan compromise what else might be done. But I think if you don’t put fiscal responsibility first, you’re going to really make a big mistake, because we demonstrated in the ’90s it had a lot to do with moving us toward solvency.

   RUSSERT: But you would not take lifting the cap at 97-5 off the table?
    CLINTON: Well, I take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan process. I don’t think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president. You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with.

Did Clinton “say no” to raising the cap? What she said was: I’m going to move toward fiscal responsibility, then I’m going to form a commission. At that time, “you can look in the context of fiscal responsibility and of a bipartisan compromise what else might be done.” Maybe you like that answer and maybe you don’t; for our part, we’d prefer to see Democratic candidates explaining that it isn’t clear that anything needs to be done about this matter. (Though that may not be winning politics, given the insistence of people like Russert that we’re in a crisis.) But she didn’t “say no” to raising the cap–unless you want to embellish a bit, so you can imply she’s dishonest. And that’s what Russert did this night, as he’s done to Big Dems in the past.

Clinton said the same thing in response to Russert’s new question.  But he could not let the canard go.  He attacked again, and she responded again:

RUSSERT:  But you did raise it as a possibility with Tod Bowman?

CLINTON:  Well, but everybody knows what the possibilities are, Tim.  Everybody knows that.  But I do not advocate it.  I do not support it.  I have laid out what I do believe, and I am going to continue to emphasize that.

I think, for us to act like Social Security is in crisis is a Republican trap.  We’re playing on the Republican field.  And I don’t intend to do that.

Russert wasn’t done:

RUSSERT:  You call it a Republican talking point.  Georgetown University, February 9, 1998:  ”We are in a–heading to a looming fiscal crisis in Social Security.  If nothing is done, it will require a huge tax increase in the payroll tax or a 25 percent in Social Security benefits,” Bill Clinton, 1998.

RUSSERT:  That’s recent history.  Only two years to go in his term.  Is that a Republican talking point?

CLINTON:  No, but what he did was to move us toward a balanced budget and a surplus.  And, if you go back and you look at the numbers, they really took off starting in `98, `99, 2000, 2001.

If you look at the debate transcript you will see that Russert’s follow was ALWAYS about Clinton - either AT her, or TO other candidates inviting them to attack her.  After letting Obama also answer the SS question, here was his follow up:

But when asked by The New York Times whether Senator Clinton has been truthful, you said no.

We already saw how Clinton was asked a question based upon what Giuiliani said.  Was Obama asked a question premised by another Republican candidate?  Yup.  Let’s see if it was a fastball or a floater:

Senator Obama, we’re going to transfer into a new area here.  A question specifically for you because you’re in a rather unique position.  It’s about religion and misinformation.  Governor Romney misspoke twice on the same day, confusing your name with that of Osama bin Laden.

Then they went to the second break, and only after that did they start asking questions of Dodd, Kucinich, and others.  What a farce.

So here’s my question - should I dig into the Daily Kos archives to see if the people so preoccupied with moaning and wailing about ABC had any of the same gripes on October 30, 2007?  No?  I didn’t think so.

Let’s go to the

February 26 debate in Cleveland, shall we?  How did that one start?  With two questions aimed directly at Clinton:

MR. WILLIAMS: A lot has been said since we last gathered in this forum, certainly since — in the few days since you two last debated. Senator Clinton, in your comments especially, the difference has been striking. And let’s begin by taking a look.

SEN. CLINTON: (From videotape.) You know, no matter what happens in this contest — and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored. (Cheers, applause.)

(From videotape.) So shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio. Let’s have a debate about your tactics and your — (cheers, applause).

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, we’re here in Ohio. Senator Obama is here. This is the debate. You would agree the difference in tone over just those 48 hours was striking.

and, quoting DRUDGE of all people:

MR. WILLIAMS: On the topic of accurate information, and to that end, one of the things that has happened over the past 36 hours — a photo went out the website The Drudge Report, showing Senator Obama in the native garb of a nation he was visiting, as you have done in a host country on a trip overseas.

Matt Drudge on his website said it came from a source inside the Clinton campaign. Can you say unequivocally here tonight it did not?

Later in the same debate Tim Russert went on the attack:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, on the issue of jobs, I watched you the other day with your economic blueprint in Wisconsin saying, this is my plan; hold me accountable. And I’ve had a chance to read it very carefully. It does say that you pledge to create 5 million new jobs over 10 years.

And I was reminded of your campaign in 2000 in Buffalo, my hometown, just three hours down Route 90, where you pledged 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York. There’s been a net loss of 30,000 jobs. And when you were asked about your pledge, your commitment, you told The Buffalo News, “I might have been a little exuberant.” Tonight will you say that the pledge of 5 million jobs might be a little exuberant?

Do you remember this exchange, before the break?  They gave Obama a long opportunity to talk about invading Iraq, and cut Clinton’s response off because they needed to go to a commercial break.  They did it with a promise to return to her on the return:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, on the issue of jobs, I watched you the other day with your economic blueprint in Wisconsin saying, this is my plan; hold me accountable. And I’ve had a chance to read it very carefully. It does say that you pledge to create 5 million new jobs over 10 years.

And I was reminded of your campaign in 2000 in Buffalo, my hometown, just three hours down Route 90, where you pledged 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York. There’s been a net loss of 30,000 jobs. And when you were asked about your pledge, your commitment, you told The Buffalo News, “I might have been a little exuberant.” Tonight will you say that the pledge of 5 million jobs might be a little exuberant?

So, what was the first question on the return, and who got it?

Senator Obama, we started tonight talking about what could be construed as a little hyperbole. Happens from time to time on the campaign trail. You have recently been called out on some yourself. I urge you to look at your monitor and we’ll take a look.

Something else funny happened there, too.  When they played Clinton videotape, they asked Obama about it.  When they played Obama videotape, they asked Obama about it.  Ain’t that grand?

Russert raised the FRAUDULENT National Archives argument again in this debate:

MR. RUSSERT: One other issue. You talked about releasing documents. On January 30th, the National Archives released 10,000 pages of your public schedule as first lady. It’s now in the custody of former President Clinton. Will you release that — again, during this primary season that you claim that eight years of experience, let the public know what you did, who you met with those eight years?

Look folks, the point is not that you’re all a bunch of hypocritical cry-babies.  You are.  The point is that this is how frontrunners get treated, and how Democratic nominees get treated.  If you had the absurd fantasy that it would be different for Obama you were foolish.  All that happened in the last year was that the media had Clinton in the cross-hairs, and Obama was their weapon of choice.  Once she’s gone, he’s next, and you have only seen the tip of the iceberg.  That, in a nutshell, is why the BELIEF that Obama is somehow transcendent, that he will lead us to a 50-state promised land, is nothing but a set-up for grotesque failure.

If you think what happened last night wasn’t fair, well, I agree with you.  But if you think it was any different from what has been happening for a year, well, you are kidding yourselves.

UPDATE II: The transformation that Scaife underwent when he met Hillary is very similar to that of Larry Johnson when he met Hillary for the first time. Larry presumed he wouldn't like her and that he'd never vote for her; instead, Larry left the meeting convinced she'd make a great president.]

I just got the report below by e-mail, from a friend, of today’s Meet The Press, where Russert apparently goes off about Hillary’s meeting on March 25th with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review newspaper. (On Tuesday, I posted a video clip and link to the board’s full video record and transcript.) Important: It was an editorial board interview of a candidate, just like those that other newspapers conduct. It so happens that Richard Mellon Scaife was present at the board’s interview. Why not? He owns the newspaper. Here’s my friend’s report:

Ok, I caught two minutes. Made my blood boil. Had to stop. But, Russert does the most ridiculous thing. He shows the Scaife picture, brings up all the Scaife smears, without acknowledging they are lies, then asks what is going on here. One of his guests says something about Hill has tried to mend fences with political enemies, but is there something more nefarious going on here?

Are these people for real? Jesus, he owns the Philly Tribune. It’s an editorial meeting. Not hard to connect the dots, right?

Then Russert uses that bogus poll about Hill’s approval rating [the discredited NBC poll]. And her losing to McCain, Obama winning. That’s when I had to turn it off.

On a much brighter note, the Washington Post has quite an editorial today titled, “Don’t Stop Campaigning / Why the rush to push Hillary Clinton out of the race for the nomination?”:

[...]

A time may come when someone should gracefully bow out. But their extended contest informs the electorate and serves to battle-test them both. We don’t see why the process should be short-circuited when millions of votes are yet to be cast and two qualified candidates believe themselves to be the best potential Democratic nominee.

There is no lack of excitement in the Democratic Party. States that have cast ballots have reported record turnouts. Registrations are through the roof. Just last week it was announced in Pennsylvania, which holds its primary April 22, that since November the number of registered Democrats increased by about 161,000. Altogether, Democrats now outnumber Republicans there by about 830,000. And this contest is far from over. While Mr. Obama leads Ms. Clinton in the popular vote and in the number of pledged delegates, it’s assumed that neither candidate will win the 2,024 delegates needed to secure the nomination.

One proffered justification for ending the campaign now, in fact, is the assumption that we know pretty much how everything will turn out. Ms. Clinton will win Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama will carry North Carolina and so on. But throughout this campaign, just about everything we’ve “known” has been wrong: Mr. McCain was finished, Ms. Clinton was inevitable, Mr. Obama had New Hampshire locked up. No doubt the Democrats have gotten themselves into a fix with rules that may leave the final decision to unelected superdelegates — but why is the answer to that less democracy? Why not give as many voters as possible a chance? …

The editorial cites numerous issues — from North Korea to affirmative action — that haven’t been addressed sufficiently in media reports and interviews of Sens. Obama and Clinton, and ends with this:

The list of issues to hash out is endless, and doing so in polite political combat could produce a stronger Democratic candidate for the fall and a better-informed electorate.

Read all of the editorial.

:::::::::::

I just checked, and neither the video or transcript of today’s Meet The Press is up yet. But the video will be up soon, with the transcript soon thereafter. MTP is good about getting its videos and transcripts up very quickly.

:::::::::::

UPDATE: From Richard Mellon Scaife’s op-ed today, March 30th, “Hillary, reassessed“:

Hillary Clinton walked into a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review conference room last Tuesday to meet with some of the newspaper’s editors and reporters and declared, “It was so counterintuitive, I just thought it would be fun to do.”

The room erupted in laughter. Her remark defused what could have been a confrontational meeting.

More than that, it said something about the New York senator and former first lady who hopes to be America’s next president.

[...]

The very morning that she came to the Trib, our editorial page raised questions about her campaign and criticized her on several other scores.

Reading that, a lesser politician — one less self-assured, less informed on domestic and foreign issues, less confident of her positions — might well have canceled the interview right then and there.

Sen. Clinton came to the Trib anyway and, for 90 minutes, answered questions.

Her meeting and her remarks during it changed my mind about her.

Walking into our conference room, not knowing what to expect (or even, perhaps, expecting the worst), took courage and confidence. Not many politicians have political or personal courage today, so it was refreshing to see her exhibit both.

Sen. Clinton also exhibited an impressive command of many of today’s most pressing domestic and international issues. Her answers were thoughtful, well-stated, and often dead-on.

Particularly regarding foreign policy, she identified what we consider to be the most important challenges and dangers that the next president must confront and resolve in order to guarantee our nation’s security. Those include an increasingly hostile Russia, an increasingly powerful China and increasing instability in Pakistan and South America. …

Read all of Scaife’s op-ed. (Special thanks to Andy for pointing me to Scaife’s op-ed.)

UPDATE II / SEE ALSO: Larry Johnson’s description of the transformative meeting he had with Hillary Clinton. Larry writes:

If you had asked me before my first visit in 2005 if she could be president, I would have said, “There are two ways–no way and no way in hell”.

Then read what happened when Larry, along with two experts in the Middle East, went to her Senate office and talked with her.