Except for Joe Scarborough.

He is the only one making sense out of that whole motley crew.  His new "Morning Joe" program is one of the few I watch on a regular basis.

I don't watch Fox period.  And now I don't watch ABC.  I am also having problems with CNN and CBS.  Pretty soon I won't be able to watch any news shows.

RE: MSNBC - The only show that HRC should go on with MSNBC is Morning Joe. It seems like Scarbourgh and Pat Buchanan are the only ones going against the MSNBC playbook and actually somewhat supporting Hillary.

As for Hillary on fox, it really showed the differences in the 2 candidates. Hillary was tough and knowledge and Obama looked weak and unsure.

I think Hillary has done an epic, watershed, paradigm-changing deed by taking on O'Reilly in O'Reily's turf and beating him.

One of their strongest pillars has always been that Liberals fold and cry and run home to Mommy when they get punched hard in the nose.  Hillary showed she can take a punch, and come back with a powerful, fast counterpunch.

Surprise, surprise.  I look forward to Dr. Dean, who as a former wrestler loves mano-a-mano, handing Chris Wallace his testicles on a platter, like Bill Clinton did on that one-to-one two years ago.

Fox is a mainstream news source (unfortunately).  You can find bias in all the media of one kind or another, but how else to get your message out to as many people as possible.  I don't have a problem with it at all--what are we supposed to do, only reach out to those who are already true believers?

Joe Scarborough's love of Hillary should tell you something!  WAKE UP, DEMOCRATS! Scarborough is the kind of voter we need to reach in '08!!!  Buchanan and O'Reilly, too! And Bill Kristol and Hannity as well.

Hmmm, a bunch of comments about how fair Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan are.  Yep, that view has nothing to do with the fact that we're in the middle of the silly season.  If HRC did win the nomination, it would be fascinating to see whether ya'll still love good old "fair" Joe & Pat.  You know, when Pat starts describing Hillary as a lesbian socialist again.  These folks aren't our friends.  It scares me that people don't seem to realize that.  

As far as going on Fox more generally, I suppose I don't particularly care.  They have viewers, so people will eventually go on.  But I do question treating them like a normal network.  Whatever bias exists on other networks, Fox is different and far worse.  For that reason, I was sad at Obama's approach and thought that Hillary appearing on O'Reilly was beyond ridiculous.  I mean seriously, what person who watches O'Reilly is ever going to vote for a Democrat?  

I think where we get our news has become a big issue. The old standards do not apply. I no longer have a problem with Fox, either. But back in the run up to the war [and for years after] they were the Bush propaganda network. Today, different story. In fact, I think the whole primary season has warranted a huge revolt in our thinking about what constitutes  acceptable new sources. I find myself reading Everything. Even sources I would have considered beyond acceptable a year ago. Why? Beause the msm is  so unreliable and incompetent. There is a great deal now that they won't publish. When Rev. Eric Lee, an Obama supporter, went into an anti-Semitic tirade against a Jewish woman at an awards dinner on the anniversary of MLK's death. No mwm news source carried it. And Lee has had to apologize twice. The mayor of LA was there--many other dignitiaries. And no one touched it. Sad.

I don't know what motivations that either Clinton or Dean had for going on, but neither do I care much.

So what if Fox is biased? The Huffington Post and Daily Kos are just as sleazy and biased. Kos diarists once even suggested that Hil's camp made Obama's skin darker for racist purposes once.

Will they unleash their wrath on Dean, too, by the way?

Our so-called "news" media are so biased today it would make Edward R. Murrow spin in his grave.  It's one thing to endorse at the close of a campaign, but a dispassionate neutrality is essential for any effective coverage.

that Fox is merely a biased conservative network, then the appearances-on-Fox boycott by Dem legislators, candidates and spokespeople makes no sense. It is just another big-media mountain Dems have to scale every election cycle.

On the other hand, if you buy the argument that Fox is much more than that, that it's really the RNC Network, then the boycott does make sense, YouTube or not.

Jerome,

how many people watch Fox News/O'Reilly clips on the internet compared to how many people see it on the TV?  The internet share has got to be miniscule.  TV is king and will be for some time.  Fox controls the editing and can present Dems who come on to interview in whatever light they want to.  Sure, a Dem that's on message 100% of the time can prevent most of that, but who is? (except, perhaps for Dean)

If you're able to post a two minute clip that shows Dean/Obama/Clinton in a good light, but the network pushes negative on other parts of the interview and uses it to attack them for weeks on their various 'news' programs, don't you think that's a "you've won a battle, they're winning the war" kind of situation?

that he can't do on CNN? Why do our people keep patronizing Fox? Oh well, whatever...

...has been looking for!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3_jh2dO7 8U&eurl

"... that its not even funny"

Sure.  That's why Scarborough and Tweety and Gregory  and their talking heads prattle on endlessly about Jeremiah Wright;  so much so, that Rachel Maddow refuses to appear on Gregory's "Race To The Whitehouse" (where she had appeared every day since its premiere) until they change the subject.

That's how in  the tank they are for Obama.

One thing's for sure. Dean will hand FOX it's head on a platter. He's not afraid of the big bad FOX.

"MSNBC is so in the tank for Obama that its not even funny"

When the facts and results are against you, discredit the messenger.

"MSNBC is so in the tank for Obama that its not even funny."  No, no - it's MSNBO ;)

Exhibit A :"MSNBC is so in the tank for Obama that its not even funny"

Exhibit B: "being one that doesn't own a TV, nor having had one in decades"

How can both of these be true? How can you comment on MSNBC's coverage if you don't have a television?

I'm not a fan of them regularly going on FOX, but when I watched the interview and the analysis after I was so impressed (as always) with Hillary.

And while I loathe O'Reilly, he made one point I agree with in term of the "bullying" that Dkos and MoveON engage in with these candidates that is pretty unseemly (but he shoulkd talk because he does the same thing).

It's either do as we say or we will be nasty and take you down. People's heads are way too big after winning in 2006 and they think the Democrats need to walk in lock step or ELSE!!!

Yes, in that malfeasance by the media is a bigger problem than ever, as ABC has recently reminded us.    If boycotting Fox is no longer a good idea, it can only be because we have thought of an even better way to attack this issue.  So what's the better way?  Surrender or ignore?  It better not be.

Evan Bayh is on MSNBC at this very moment hitting softballs from Andrea Mitchell. A few minutes ago they had some hack from the Washington Times attacking Obama.

Obviously watching selected video clips gives one an incomplete, if not biased, POV.

Um...Fox News is the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. There are lots of good reasons for Democrats not to go on it.

I don't expect McCain to go onto Air America Radio or Countdown, which would be much more fair to him than the Bush/Murdoch news empire is.

But whatever...a lot of Clinton supporters lost total perspective once her most vociferous media critics became her number 1 supporters. She sat down with the guy that said she was a murderer throughout the '90s! Buchanan laments about the position of white men in this country. Excuse me if I think coddling critics make Democrats look weak.

This whole thing is incredibly disappointing, and has set back the cause of progressive politics for a generation.  Marginalizing Fox News and other right wing propaganda machines was the key to enacting future progressive reforms and legislation.  Now, all that is lost.  Thanks, Hillary, for being the first one to abandon our cause and open up the floodgates!

"However, being one that doesn't own a TV, nor having had one in decades, I'll admit that I'm not the best observer of the problem."

So why are you commenting at all?  You exist in a world that has very little to do with how modern politics work, if you are ignoring TV completely.  Fox is a partisan network run by partisan Republicans who in their previous line of work helped get GHW Bush elected President.  Its purpose in life is to spread propaganda and help Republicans.  Any Democrat who thinks Fox will allow him or her to control how he or she looks on the network is remarkably naive.  

I also don't understand how you can claim MSNBC is in the tank for Obama, while simultaneously saying that you don't own a TV and haven't had one for decades.  Perhaps you will next inform us of your opinion on Proust?  

The only purpose of Count Down is to give Madow, Robinson, Milbank, etc.. a chance to pimp Obama.  It is getting so redundant that you can actually guess (with a 75% chance of being right)what each is going to say before they are even introduced.  What a pathetic hack KO has become.

DTG: One personality? OK, if you say so! I think I can count Mathews in that camp but I'll give you that one.

But what about the 99% of guest invited on the network?  Imean, can't they find anybody other than Rachael Madow, Eugene Robinson and Dana Milbank?

John Dean or Howard Dean? The article doesn't say ... :~)