Tag Archives: 2012 presidential

Ed Schultz: Palin is Racist for Criticizing the Obamas’ Connection to Rev. Wright

After spending much of his week accusing Rush Limbaugh of racism, Ed Schultz on Friday made the same absurd claim about former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. Following in the footsteps of others on his network as well as the liberal blogosphere, the MSNBCer said it was racist for Palin to refer to comments Michelle Obama made in 2008 about never having been proud of her country before her husband started winning primaries. It was also racist of Palin to mention in her book the Obamas' connection to Rev. Jeremiah Wright (video follows with transcript and commentary): read more

Read more here:
Ed Schultz: Palin is Racist for Criticizing the Obamas’ Connection to Rev. Wright

Jack Cafferty Lumps in Christine O’Donnell in New Attack on Palin

On Wednesday’s Situation Room, CNN’s Jack Cafferty revisited his anti-Sarah Palin obsession and somewhat predictably, grouped U.S. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell with the former Alaska governor, stating it ” feels like Sarah Palin all over again ….O’Donnell has some big question marks on her resume, just like…Palin.”  Most of the viewer e-mails Cafferty read bashed the two politicians. The commentator devoted his 5 pm Eastern hour commentary to the two Republican women. After his “feels like Sarah Palin all over again” line, Cafferty recounted O’Donnell’s emergence on the national political scene, and wasted little time in outlining her negative similarities to Palin: “Suddenly, everybody can’t seem to get enough of her. This is despite the fact that O’Donnell has some big question marks on her resume, just like Sarah Palin. She’s come under fire for allegedly misusing campaign funds for personal expenses-just like Sarah Palin .” The CNN personality briefly touched on the Delaware Republican’s eleven-year-old “dabbled in witchcraft” remarks and her traditional stance on sexuality before returning to his attack: CAFFERTY: O’Donnell has also been in the spotlight for saying that years ago, she ‘dabbled in witchcraft,’ and had one of her first dates with a witch on a satanic altar- she really said that. And she’s used her views on abstinence to rule out masturbation. After her last-minute cancellation of two Sunday show appearances this past weekend, O’Donnell suddenly announced that Sarah Palin has advised her now not to do any more national media interviews, and instead, focus just on local media. Based on Sarah Palin’s interviews with Katie Couric, that’s probably not bad advice. Those were disastrous, remember? I wonder if it means that O’Donnell is as poorly informed on the issues as Sarah Palin was . It all sounds so very familiar, doesn’t it? Palin’s resume [is] littered with goofy comments like saying that she could see Russia from Alaska, or not being able to name a single newspaper that she read on a daily basis. Sarah Palin quit as governor of Alaska midway through her first term. She often refuses to talk about a lot of the issues with the media, unless, of course, it’s with the F-word network- they pay her . But none of that seems to matter. Sarah Palin has become this huge celebrity who is seriously being talked about as a possible presidential contender- which is just what we need. Remember the McCain campaign? Cafferty concluded the segment with his “Question of the Hour” on the two women: “So here’s the question: why do people like Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell attract so much attention? Go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile, and please enlighten me, because I don’t have a clue .” Unsurprisingly, only two of the viewer replies which he read just before the top of the 6 pm Eastern hour could be characterized as leaning neutral, with the rest going in full liberal rage mode against the politicians. The CNN personality, along with anchor Wolf Blitzer, also made light of O’Donnell’s witchcraft remarks after he concluded reading the replies. CAFFERTY: Carlos in Pasadena [California]: ‘The popularity of the Tea Party lies with the media because the media loves the anomaly, the weird, the extreme, and the immediate . This, coupled with the quick solution, the sound bite, and an audience that has a brief attention span, makes the Palins et al popular.’ Andy says, ‘ Palin and O’Donnell represent the ideal Stepford housewives. The older conservative white men can fantasize about them, and the older white women can emulate them. It’s scary to think that candidates no longer have to talk about the issues, and can hide behind slideshow bullet points. Once again, beauty reigns in the white man’s world and intelligence is a negative .’ Professor writes, ‘I don’t think the majority of Americans like either one of them, Jack. We simply like watching train wrecks occur. These two whackos are foolish people who think the rest of us are stupid enough to fall for rhetoric and populism .’ Nick writes, ‘It’s because their rhetoric is in the right place. The country is still going through a rough time, economically, and while they have shown time and time again that they do not have the qualifications to fix our problems, much less debate them , they still provide an accurate mouthpiece to vent frustration and anger among Americans. They’re using the current situation for their own political and personal gain.’ Jean writes, ‘Three words: pretty white women- looks and no brains. Who was more famous than Marilyn Monroe? And, they don’t have to be blond to be ditsy .’ Tom in Texas writes, ‘Harken back to some of Palin’s old video, plus Ms. O’Donnell’s recent admissions. You’ve just gotta know, as the song goes, it’s witchcraft.’ If you want to read more on this- got a lot of e-mail- go to my blog, CNN.com/CaffertyFile. WOLF BLITZER: Jack- CAFFERTY: Have you ever been on a date at a Satanic altar? BLITZER: Missed that one. (unintelligible) CAFFERTY: Missed that- me too. (unintelligible) My life has got some voids in it. That’s one . BLITZER: That’s certainly one I have (unintelligible) (both Blitzer and Cafferty laugh) Jack, thanks very much. The CNN commentator has targeted Sarah Palin since the autumn of 2008, devoting 35% of his Cafferty Files segments over a month period to bashing the former governor. Since then, Cafferty has derided Palin as “lame” and referred to her as ” Caribou Barbie .” Just over two months ago, he hypothesized that the Republican’s popularity was a good omen for Democrats: “”If anything could overcome the increasingly sour view of the Obama presidency, it might be this. Why, the Democrats should be positively euphoric .”

More here:
Jack Cafferty Lumps in Christine O’Donnell in New Attack on Palin

9.5% Unemployment and Chris Matthews Doesn’t Get Why People Miss Bush

Despite unemployment at 9.5 percent and millions of people having lost their jobs since Barack Obama was elected, Chris Matthews just doesn’t understand why anyone would miss George W. Bush. Without naming this week’s PPP poll finding Ohioans would vote for Bush over Obama by the tally of 50 to 42 percent if a presidential election was held today, Matthews in the first segment of “Hardball” asked his guests, “Why would you want that back?” When Time’s Michael Scherer tried to explain logically why voters are disappointed with what Obama has done since Inauguration Day, Matthews wasn’t having any of it (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Here`s the point. Why are the voters now in these polls — now, some of the polls are robocall polls. They`re not the most reliable polls. But I`m seeing enough evidence to think there`s something going on. When people say — independent voters say they`d rather have Bush back — MICHAEL SCHERER, TIME: That`s right. MATTHEWS: — after Iraq and taking this economy — doubling the national debt, bringing the deficit out of nowhere, when Clinton left it with a big, fat surplus, why would you want that back? SCHERER: Take — MATTHEWS: What`s your reporting tell you? SCHERER: What a lot of these voters are voting for — these are independent voters. You know, the miracle of Obama in 2008 wasn`t that he got elected, it was that he got elected in a lot of states like Indiana and North Carolina that didn`t go Democrat very often. He did that by grabbing independent voters who were sick of President Bush, who thought the country was going in the wrong direction, and he offered a broad promise of hope and change that hasn`t been delivered. That`s what he`s suffering for. And I think in a place like Ohio, where you`re talking about that poll, what people are saying is, “Look, you know, we weren`t being treated well with the last guy. We`re not treated being well with this guy. We`ll take whatever we can get.” Exactly. Matthews either forgot or was dishonestly ignoring that this is why the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008: the country was unhappy with Republicans and just wanted to vote “D”. Now, the country is unhappy with the Ds: DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: There has been a message problem out of the White House. When you have polls showing that people don`t believe the stimulus has created jobs or saved jobs and you have Republicans echoing and — and reemphasizing that particular lie, and it sets in, well, that`s something that actually, I think, is within the realm of control for the White House. MATTHEWS: There are two choices when you vote, D or R. If the people push R, does your reporting tell that they know they`re voting for more lackadaisical administration, like Katrina, more hawkishness and neo- conservative fighting of wars that are wars of choice, not necessity? Do they know they`re voting for that kind of thing? And they`re voting for a guy who was so sloppy on fiscal policy, refused to veto a single spending bill, that we doubled the national debt? Do they know that that`s what R means when they vote R this November? SCHERER: When I was in Indiana — I was in South Bend, Elkhart, Joe Donnelly, very tough reelecting, won with 67 percent — MATTHEWS: Yes. SCHERER: — of the vote — MATTHEWS: I liked that part. SCHERER: — a couple years ago — he is dealing with voters who were telling me Barack Obama`s not the guy I voted for. I thought he was going to turn the economy around. He didn`t turn the economy around. I didn`t know he was going to do this health care thing. I thought he was going to change Washington (INAUDIBLE) Washington change. That`s what they were voting for. It has nothing to do with the wars, the other — MATTHEWS: Well, that`s the reelection talk, right. SCHERER: No, but these are independent voters. These are people — you know, they`re not high-information voters — (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: When Obama was running for reelection or running for election, the economy wasn`t in the tank. It went in the tank during the transition. Doesn`t anybody remember that? It was the last quarter of the Bush administration that everything went to hell. Once again, it’s tough to determine whether Matthews’ memory is suffering or he’s just dishonest. The recession officially began in December 2007, and the financial crisis started in September 2008 – the THIRD quarter almost two full months BEFORE Election Day: SCHERER: Obama went to Elkhart, Indiana, in February of 2009, couple weeks after he gets in office, he says, I`m going to pass the stimulus. It`s going to help you. I`m going to keep my promise — MATTHEWS: Right. SCHERER: — to Elkhart. Elkhart`s unemployment now is over 13 percent and it`s been rising again this summer. MATTHEWS: Because it was rising when he came in. SCHERER: It was rising — (CROSSTALK) CORN: — probably would be higher now if Obama hadn`t — (CROSSTALK) CORN: And you know, this is — this is the administration`s obligation, and Democrats on the Hill are livid because they don`t think the White House is living up to this obligation of making a stronger case – – MATTHEWS: There`s so much — CORN: — making the case that you just made! MATTHEWS: Let`s make the points through the numbers. Unemployment when Bush came in was 4.2 percent. When he left office, it was up to 7.6 percent, way up from where he came in. When Bush came into office, we had a $281 billion Clinton-led surplus. When he left, we had a $1.2 trillion deficit. And he doubled the national debt. Those are the facts on the table. Yes, but unemployment is now at 9.5 percent and likely climbing. There are currently 3.3 million fewer people on non-farm payrolls than in January 2009 making today’s labor markets FAR WORSE than they were when Obama took office. But that’s only half the story, for the Democrats have controlled Congress since January 2007. As this is a Congressional election, it is a referendum on what the Party controlling the House and the Senate have done since they took over. Here, the numbers are even more glaring, as the unemployment rate that month was 4.6 percent. Over 7 million people have lost their jobs since the Democrats took over Congress. As for fiscal policy, the last budget created by the Republican-controlled Congress had a deficit of $160 billion. This year, with Obama and Democrats controlling everything, we’re on pace for close to a $1.6 trillion deficit, or TEN TIMES 2007’s shortfall. But Matthews doesn’t want to share those numbers with his viewers:  MATTHEWS: Let`s go back to the politics again. The voter out there, he can only choose between what he had and what he has. You`re saying he`s going to choose what he had in Elkhart, Indiana. SCHERER: They`re not voting for Bush in Elkhart. They`re voting — they`re voting because they`re — (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Their memory of what? SCHERER: No, they`re disappointed with what they have. Indeed, because no matter how you slice it, in most parts of the country, things are worse today than they were when Obama was inaugurated and FAR WORSE than when the Democrats took over Congress. But don’t expect a shill like Chris Matthews to report that in an election year.

Read more here:
9.5% Unemployment and Chris Matthews Doesn’t Get Why People Miss Bush

Vanity Fair’s Palin Antagonist: ‘I Have a Lot in Common with this Woman’

The author of a  10,600-word Vanity Fair hit piec e on Sarah Palin is defending his work, claiming he set out to defend the former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate, but that the resulting article “was forced on me by the facts.” Michael Gross appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Sept. 2 to discuss his article in the October issue of Vanity Fair. The piece depicts Palin as a volatile, vengeful, mean-spirited figure, although Gross  only managed to find one person  willing to speak critically of Palin on the record. “The worst stuff isn’t even in there,” Gross said on “Morning Joe” when asked about the extreme picture he paints of Palin. “You know, I couldn’t believe these stories either when I first heard them and I started the story with the prejudice in her favor. I have a lot in common with this woman. I’m a small town person, I’m a Christian. I think that a lot of her criticisms of the media actually have something to them and I figured she’d gotten a bum ride but everybody close to her tells the same story.” Yet for someone so supposedly enamored with Palin, Gross sure turned quickly. He said Palin is “a person for whom there is no topic too small to lie about,” citing a speech in Wichita in which Palin contradicted other statements she’d made about finding out her son, Trig, would have special needs. “She lies about everything,” Gross continued, without offering other examples. “She lies about her personal life. She lies about, she lies about …” At one point, Gross said that “if we start returning to the standard that … a politician has to tell the truth, then she is out of here because she can’t stand up to that.” When host Willie Geist pressed Gross on criticism that his piece is a hatchet job, the author maintained that “it’s exactly the opposite. As I said before, I started this with every good intention toward her. I was just shocked and appalled at every step at what I found and I wrote this story, you know, sort of against my will. It wasn’t what I wanted to write, it wasn’t what I wanted to find. It was forced on me by the facts.”  Like this article? Sign up for “Culture Links,” CMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter, by  clicking   here.

Go here to read the rest:
Vanity Fair’s Palin Antagonist: ‘I Have a Lot in Common with this Woman’

Explaining ‘Lives Touched’ to the Mainstream Media

In late July, a Government Accountability Office report circulated which analyzed stimulus funding being spent by the Department of Energy.  The main gist of that report involved the cost of each job being generated by the stimulus bill – a staggering $194,000.  Tucked away in that report was a phrase that was new to most of us, a way to calculate jobs through a term called ‘lives touched’. Last week it was confirmed that some departments being funded by the stimulus are indeed using the metric ‘lives touched’ – a regression from the absurd ‘jobs saved or created’, which was already a step down from the incalculable ‘jobs created’. A spokesperson from the CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company explains: “Lives Touched” is a figure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) uses to track the amount of people who have been positively affected by the Recovery Act funds.  This total would include people who have been provided full time employment (i.e. saved and created jobs) through the Recovery Act and people who at some point have supported a project funded by the Recovery Act. Essentially, the Obama administration had figured out another way to inflate job numbers to better fit their claims of success.  And yet, the media has remained largely silent on this matter.  Even as Vice-President Biden released a report on the Recovery Act yesterday, with a specific focus on the Department of Energy and job creation. Below is an outline of how the administration and the DOE are collaborating to inflate their numbers by measuring the number of ‘lives touched’ by the stimulus bill. In their remarks , Vice-President Biden and DOE Secretary Chu reference job creation several times (emphasis mine throughout). Biden:   “… the Recovery Act’s $100 billion investment in innovation is not only transforming the economy and creating new jobs … Chu:  “…these breakthroughs are helping create tens of thousands of new jobs …” Biden:  “We’re planting the seeds of innovation, but private companies and the nation’s top researchers are helping them grow, launching entire new industries, transforming our economy and creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the process.” The Biden report being cited, The Recovery Act: Transforming the American Economy Through Innovation , references several companies that have generated jobs through the Recovery Act.  Each footnote in the report explains that the job estimates are from a company’s own reports, which is the norm for reporting job results through the recovery website. Referring back to the CH2M company, we know that their reports include a directive to use numbers which estimate ‘lives touched’ by the stimulus.  We not only know this from the spokesperson’s explanation of the metric above, but by the reporting instructions provided to subcontractors which defines the phrase as “(the) total number of workers who have directly charged 1 or more hours of work time to a … contract.” One hour of work and your life has been touched.  Additionally, the instructions state that, “The lives touched headcount will remain the same or increase over time as new workers become involved with ARRA contracts.  The total headcount will never decrease.” In other words, a temporary, part-time, or seasonal worker can come into a project, work no more than one hour on said project, and that person will continue to appear in the headcount with each report.  They will not be removed upon their departure from the project. The DOE themselves have also confirmed this metric.  Spokesman Cameron Hardy explains: “Lives touched” represents the cumulative number of full-time, part-time, and temporary workers that have been employed with EM Recovery Act funds at some point since the start of the program in April 2009.  As of June 30, 2010, the lives touched number is more than 24,000 and we have 10,500 full-time Recovery Act workers, working across the DOE Complex. The metric, according to the DOE, was developed by the Office of Environmental Management “to capture all workers that have been employed under the Recovery Act.”  But why the need to capture all workers, when some may have only worked a mere hour on a project, or who have only supported a project in some manner?  Simply put, to inflate the numbers. The GAO report claims that calculations from the DOE “ranged from about 5,700 jobs to 20,200, depending on the methodology used.”   What is the harm in providing an overall headcount, as long as it remains separate from official job reports?  Well, it turns out that they can’t seem to keep things separate. When these numbers are presented publicly and then parroted through the mainstream media who have clearly not done their homework, as was the case with yesterday’s Biden report, the result is deceit.  The administration provided job estimates while failing to provide any context or explanation as to how the numbers were derived. An example of this can be seen in an April News Flash provided by the Office of Environmental Management.  The chart on the right tallies up the total headcount or ‘lives touched’ as 20,249.  A statement on the left claims that “EM Recovery Act funding has employed over 20,000 workers on stimulus projects in 12 states.”  Which is it, employed or touched? A contract award summary for the National Opinion Research Center speaks volumes of the disparity.  In their ‘description of jobs created’ section, they explain how the numbers are derived: “…the total headcount, (the number of ‘lives touched’ or, the number of people who have labor hours funded by stimulus funds, not distinguishing between part-time and full-time, or the length of the job, as of June 30th is a combined total of 480 staff members hired/retained as of the end of the quarter.” The summary then goes on to explain that only 2 of the 480 jobs being discussed were newly created positions.  Two jobs, but a grand total of 480 are being reported.  That’s a markup up of 24,000%. It would be funny, if it weren’t so sad. It’s all part of the overall deception, however.  The White House continues to throw out random numbers in their quest to convince the public that their behemoth stimulus bill is saving jobs at a massive rate.  Whether it is created, saved, funded, or touched, the Obama administration’s smoke and mirrors tactics continue.  Perhaps that will change.  Perhaps the American people will see right through these lies. Perhaps the polls in November will clearly demonstrate how many lives are being touched by the stimulus bill – in a negative way. Crossposted at The Mental Recession

Read the original:
Explaining ‘Lives Touched’ to the Mainstream Media

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Predicts ‘Certain Networks’ Will ‘Maul’ Haley Barbour If He Runs in 2012

The co-host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Joe Scarborough, strongly believes certain networks would play the race card big time against southern Republican Haley Barbour, if he runs for President in 2012. Scarborough predicted on Thursday that if the Mississippi governor is the Republican Presidential nominee in 2012, the media would smear him as a racist white man from the South running against the first black president. He particularly stated that “certain networks” would “maul” Barbour if he runs, resulting in an awkward moment on the set. Could Scarborough possibly have meant MSNBC in that cast? When the discussion turned to a possible Barbour-Obama race in 2012, Scarborough put in his two cents. “I like [Barbour] a lot,” he said. “I just don’t like the optics of him against Barack Obama in 2012.” Scarborough invoked the media’s treatment of the Clintons in the 2008 Democratic Primary as an example. “We saw last time, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton were accused of being racists. How will the mainstream media treat an old-time Southern governor from Mississippi who criticizes [Obama]?” Politico executive editor Jim Vandehei even sounded his agreement with Scarborough. “I think you pinpointed exactly his biggest liability,” he told Scarborough of Barbour. “Before people knew me, they assumed because I was from the South that I was a racist,” Scarborough continued. “Ask Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton what the national media did to them because they were running against an African-American.” A transcript of the segment, which aired on August 19, at 6:25 a.m. EDT, is as follows: JOE SCARBOROUGH: I like this guy a lot. I just don’t the optics of him against Barack Obama in 2012 as a Republican strategist, the optics. TINA BROWN, editor-in-chief, The Daily Beast: What do you mean the optics? JIM VANDEHEI: executive editor, Politico: A Southern, bourbon-drinking, former tobacco lobbyist optics? SCARBOROUGH: No, seriously, from Mississippi. And let’s just get it out on the table now, because nobody else will say it. From Mississippi, running against the first African-American President. It’s going to be tough for any Republican, even from Minnesota…to run against an African-American. We saw last time, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton were accused of being racists. Jim, how will the mainstream media treat an old-time Southern governor from Mississippi who criticizes him? VANDEHEI: I mean, I think you pinpointed exactly his biggest liability. (…) 6:28 a.m. BROWN: You say you don’t like the optics, and of course that is an enormous thing, Mississippi versus the African-American. But at the same time, if you look at the optics the other way, and say he actually comes off as a kind of grisly, hands-on, experienced – I mean he could be like the un-Barack, in that sense, you know? JOE SCARBOROUGH: I will tell you, though. I can already write the columns, that will be in the New York Times op-ed pages, and I know this, going on shows, where there’s politically correct you-name-it, where before people knew me they assumed because I was from the South that I was a racist. And again, ask Hillary Clinton, or Bill Clinton, what the national media did to them because they were running against an African-American. BROWN: But we have a different period now. I mean, I think, I think nobody wants that to be said, and I’m sure that there are ways that perhaps he could  – SCARBOROUGH: They accused Bill Clinton of being a racist. BROWN: That race was full of the kind of idealism of, you know, of the first African-American President, which it should have been. SCARBOROUGH: So let’s call Bill Clinton a racist. You get the point. If they would do that to the guy that people called “the first black president,” what will they do to a Southern governor that looks like Haley. BROWN: Yeah, it’ll be ugly. SCARBOROUGH: They will maul him, on certain networks.

Read more here:
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Predicts ‘Certain Networks’ Will ‘Maul’ Haley Barbour If He Runs in 2012

Chris Matthews Show: Hillary Should Replace Biden to Help Obama’s Re-election

The panel of the syndicated “Chris Matthews Show” this weekend campaigned for Hillary Clinton to replace Joe Biden as Vice President in order to assist Barack Obama’s re-election in 2012 and set her up for a successful presidential bid in 2016.  As NewsBusters reported Wednesday, Chris Matthews on that evening’s “Hardball” had former Virginia governor Doug Wilder and New York magazine’s John Heilemann on to discuss the merits of this strategy. The “Hardball” host must have found this quite compelling, for he decided to do an entire segment on his weekend program with guests Erin Burnett of CNBC, Norah O’Donnell of NBC, Howard Fineman of Newsweek, and Heilemann. After playing a clip from Wednesday’s “Hardball,” as well as a video of Clinton in 2009 saying she’d never run for president again, Matthews and his panel started the campaigning (videos follow with commentary): Readers are advised to notice a couple of interesting things in this video. First, panelists talked about what a great job Clinton’s doing as Secretary of State, yet no one elaborated on exactly what she’s done in the past eighteen months in this capacity that’s been so spectacular. Are relations with Iran any better? No. Are relations with Syria any better? No.  Are relations with North Korea any better? No. Are relations with Cuba or Venezuela any better? No. Has there been any improvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? No. As such, what exactly has Clinton done as Secretary of State that warrants such praise for her job performance?  As the answer appears to be “Very little,” the takeaway to all this unwarranted Hillary fawning is that her adoring fans in the media clearly would like to see her run in 2016, and that they are now participating in a makeover to facilitate that end. On the other hand, what does this say about their confidence in Obama? If these folks believe that he needs some help from Hillary to win re-election, isn’t that a bash at him? Consider that in a subsequent segment, Matthews asked if Obama’s young age – which was a benefit in 2008 – might hurt him in 2012. Heilemann felt it would:  JOHN HEILEMANN, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: I think the Republican attack on Obama is going to revolve around too liberal, but also too incompetent. And, and the inexperience that, that I think Republicans will try to hang around his neck, they’re going to say, “Look, you hired this guy. He was too young for this job. He didn’t know what he was doing. He didn’t have the experience, and look what’s happened.” Indeed. Of course, this is what the Clintons were saying in 2008 along with John McCain, Sarah Palin, and all those that opposed Obama’s election for exactly this reason. Now that it’s becoming apparent that this former junior senator from Illinois really was too inexperienced for the position, his fans in the media are actually suggesting he needs help from Hillary Clinton in 2012 to make the ticket look more competent. Maybe if these sycophants would have properly reported his glaring lack of qualifications during the primaries rather than gushed and fawned over him like teenyboppers near a rock star, this would never have happened. Hmmm. 

More here:
Chris Matthews Show: Hillary Should Replace Biden to Help Obama’s Re-election

Time’s Joe Klein Cheap Shots Palin: ‘She Doesn’t Know Anything’; Earns Creepy Chris Matthews Cackle

There’s something very tortuous about watching some of the talking heads assembled on NBC’s “The Chris Matthews Show,” especially when they try to dissect former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin like she is some alien life form. On the July 11 broadcast of his weekend show, Matthews and his panel analyzed Palin’s “Mama Grizzlies” ad spot and attempted to determine what Palin’s end goal was with the ad. And Time magazine’s Joe Klein attributed credit to Palin’s charismatic ability.   “The most important thing about Sarah Palin is that she’s a great stand-up politician,” Klein said. “I mean, when you hear her talk – this is not a woman who has sat in a room with a political consultant telling her how to pronounce words. It’s just her voice.” “There’s something in the inflection which is provocative,” Matthews replied. But then came the eventual expected cheap shot from Klein. Klein had once said Sarah Palin and Fox News host Glenn Beck should be tried for sedition on that same program and he didn’t disguise his disdain for Palin on this episode either. “But I think that’s balanced against the fact that she doesn’t know anything ,” Klein said. “And that’s a big problem.” Klein’s comments earned the trademark Matthews “ha!” However, CNBC’s Trish Regan advised her co-panelists not to underestimate the power of Palin when it comes to the women vote. “Experience does matter, but let’s not forget that if women are motivated, they can make a difference at the voting booth,” Regan said. “Look at 2008 – 10 million more women voted than men.” That wasn’t good enough for Matthews or Klein. They were already looking toward the Iowa caucus in January 2012, where the demographics are a little different. “You got to Iowa, one woman, evangelical Christian against four guys,” Matthews said. “I still think the shape of the field is important, right Joe?” “Right, especially in Iowa,” Klein replied.

Go here to read the rest:
Time’s Joe Klein Cheap Shots Palin: ‘She Doesn’t Know Anything’; Earns Creepy Chris Matthews Cackle

Ed Schultz Wonders If Obama Is ‘Still Alive’

Perry Cobama? One of the great comedy bits from the classic SCTV show was a skit satirizing an ultra relaxed and disengaged Perry Como singing “Still Alive” in a most lackadaisical manner. And now we have MSNBC host Ed Schultz wondering aloud on his radio show if Barack Obama is “Still Alive.” Here is a transcript of Schultz commenting on Obama’s detachment to the extent that Big Ed isn’t even sure he wants to run for president again:

‘Conservative’ NYT Columnist Douthat: Right-Wingers Don’t Realize Hawaii’s A State

Over the weekend, Dave Weigel resigned as WaPo’s house chronicler of conservatives after revelations of his antipathy toward the people he was covering. Tonight brings us the spectacle of Ross Douthat, an ostensibly conservative columnist at the New York Times.  Appearing on MSNBC’s Ed Schultz show, Douthat proffered precisely zero criticism of anyone or anything liberal.  But he did manage to mock Mike Huckabee as “passive-aggressive.”  For good measure, Douthat suggested that “right-wing” people who question Barack Obama’s place of birth are too dense to realize that Hawaii is a state of the union. The Nation’s Chris Hayes subbed for Schultz tonight, and he didn’t have to strain to elicit criticism of conservatives from Douthat.  After playing a clip of Huckabee stating the apparent fact that he polls better than other Republicans against Obama, Douthat opined. View video here . ROSS DOUTHAT:  I think that’s classically Huckabee. It’s sort of charmingly passive-aggressive. In the clip, Huckabee criticized no one.  What’s “passive-aggressive” about observing that one’s leading in some polls? Later, Hayes invited Douthat to riff off a poll that showed 24% of Americans don’t think Pres. Obama was born in the U.S. DOUHAT: There are two ways to read it, right?  Clearly on the one hand it’s illustrative of a certain kind of paranoia among many Americans, right-wing Americans about Barack Obama. On the other hand, I really think you can overstate the importance of these polls.  There are polls every year that show 42% of Americans believe in UFOs.   HAYES: Also disturbing! DOUTHAT: Also disturbing. But I also wonder, if you took that 21% [sic] and polled them and said what percentage know that being born outside the US — HAYES: Disqualifies — DOUTHAT: Is a disqualification for the presidency. Or if you polled them and said, what percentage know that Hawaii is actually a state?  That sounds like a joke, but– that sounds like a joke — Douthat was interrupted, but his point was clear.  Right-wingers: too thick to realize that Hawaii’s a state. Ross sounds like the quintessential NYT/MSNBC “conservative”: one most interested in ingratiating himself with his liberal masters.

See the original post here:
‘Conservative’ NYT Columnist Douthat: Right-Wingers Don’t Realize Hawaii’s A State