Looking Back In Anger

http://politicalpyro.blogsome.com/2008/0 5/20/looking-back-with-anger/

The Democrat Party -- crippled for decades by stale ideas that never quite resonated after the turbulent 60's, humiliated by the perception of weakness against the backdrop of the Cold War and the Reagan Revolution -- the party of George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis FINALLY broke through the bland barrier when Bill Clinton was discovered in 1992.  

The Republicans were so insensed with the DNC's one shining star that they embarked on an eight year character assassination attempt, culminating with an impeachment trial that produced..... NOTHING.

The Clintons survived every political stick, stone, and scud launched at them. Yet amidst the constant haze of the incessant political battlefield they still managed to make the 90's one of the most peaceful and prosperous times in American history.
The post-Bill Clinton years were like a time warp. We returned to candidates who were uncomfortable and stiff in debate. Al Gore, much like Jimmy Carter, has proven to be much more interesting far away from the political arena. John Kerry was a dud from the beginning, much like Dukakis. The Massachusetts liberals never had a ghost of a chance in connecting with the vastly diverse American culture.

After eight years of yet another DNC draught, not one but TWO shining stars have emerged. This time, however, each candidate inspires completely different segments of the DNC canvas. Each candidate is flawed in his and her own way. There are doubts that either candidate alone will be able to defeat John McCain in the general election.

But with the Democrat party split almost exactly down the middle, and both candidates drawing a record number of voters to the polls, any sane person in the DNC should have recognized months ago that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama together would be the "unstoppable force" that Bill Clinton spoke of months ago. Call them Yen and Yang.

Hillary Clinton "unleashed" with the backing power of the formidable Clinton machine, along with arguably the most inspirational political figure in 50 years, would have won in November in a landslide. With Hillary at the top of the ticket and the unvetted freshman senator in the V.P. slot, the perfect resolution to the perfect storm would have been complete.

Why Hillary on top? Because not only has all her political dirty laundry been hanging in the wind for 15 years, it has rotted on the clothes line from endless Republican prodding. Barack Obama desperately needs a good, long meet-and-greet with the American public who deserves to know who he really is. Who is Wright, Rezko, Auschi, Odinga, and Ayers? What do they have to do with you? Why does your foreign policy team resemble a bunch of anti-Semetic skinheads that would make the Third Reich proud? America will NEVER elect Barack Obama without having satisfactory answers to those questions. Regardless of what Uncle Teddy thinks (Godspeed, Teddy). And six months isn't enough time to do it.

The DNC has the opportunity to squeeze 16 years out of their two shining stars. Unfortunately, they don't possess the vision to make that happen. After eight years as Vice President, under the protective wings and guidance of the Clintons, Barack Obama would emerge fully-vetted. At age 54, he could boast that his career never backtracked once in his stellar rise to the White House. He would still be fresh and inspiring.

As things stand now, Barack Obama is lining himself up to be yet another failed DNC attempt at reclaiming the White House. There is simply too much anger within the party for him to even secure a solid blue state victory. After November, he will tip-toe back into the Senate, his collegues glaring at him in dismay. The stellar rise of Barack Obama will suffer a setback that won't allow him to run again for possibly 8 years. By then, the magic will be gone.

By attempting to play kingmaker for their man Barack Obama, the mainstream media and half of Washington have attempted to destroy the Clintons. In final analysis, they will succeed only in destroying both candidates. Sadly, many in Washington and the mainstream media, whether through greed or vanity, don't have the intellectual fortitude to see the destruction of their party in the making. I pray my party changes course immediately and stops the bleeding of these self-inflicted wounds. Stop the political assassination of the Clintons now! Make the Clinton/Obama ticket a reality so we can all stand unified in November!

Stand down Michelle Obama! Stand down Keith Olbermann! Stand down Nancy Pelosi!

If only someone would listen...

There's more...

Who Will Police the Media?

http://politicalpyro.blogsome.com/2008/0 5/25/who-will-police-the-media/

In the consumer age of federally mandated regulation and transparency, no product can be released to the public without a series of intense evaluations, tests, labels, and warnings.

Make that: Almost no product.

Look on the back of a soda can, or a box of Twinkies, and you will find a federally mandated list of ingredients. In music, check out the latest releases by Lupe Fiasco or Ghostface Killah and you will see a parental advisory warning on the cover. In movies and television, look for a rating flashed before the credits. Video games are rated. Bags come with a suffocation warning. Small items are choking hazards. Coffee is hot. Don't eat the lead paint. Not intended to be a cure...

So where is the list of ingredients for the television news media? Conservative talk radio is filled with hosts who proudly admit they are entertainers or commentators. They never pretend to be journalists. In fact, they are usually the ones screaming about the likes of CNN and MSNBC hiding behind a journalistic banner.

Almost no unbiased journalism is left in television news today. Political opinions and commentaries literally overwhelm the "news" airwaves 24 hours a day. What little journalism actually gets reported is highly filtered by network CEOs with a political agenda.

What is not reported is even more disturbing. "News networks" chose to ignore the Reverend Wright story until their hand was forced sometime after the Texas and Ohio primaries and the Barack Obama-William Ayers connection was completely ignored until George Stephanopoulos brought Ayers' name up during a debate -- and the media silence is perfectly legal.

Why has the news media been given a regulatory pass?

Another question: What is the standard journalism-to-opinion ratio that a network must live up to in order to call themselves a "news network"? Arguably, the History and Discovery Channels present far more unbiased information than CNN or MSNBC, and yet they do not purport to be "news".

Maureen Dowd writes for the New York Times underneath the banner `Opinion'. There is nothing wrong or deceptive about that. I am not in favor of censorship. However, there is no `Opinion' banner that flashes across the screen before Keith Olbermann launches into his pro-Obama tirade -- or before Chris Matthews informs the world of some chills running up his leg. Why not? Are viewers expected to assume these men are merely offering an opinion, yet NOT expected to assume their cup of coffee is hot?

Americans hold the "fourth branch of government" up to a high standard. For decades, the words of Walter Cronkite or Peter Jennings were as sacred as the gospel. However, today's news media is clearly different. Manipulation of public opinion -- under the false banner of journalism -- should be monitored by strict FCC guidelines with hefty penalties. Networks should never be allowed to have this amount of power again. Those who refuse to comply with these proposed new FCC standards should be forced to call themselves `Opinion' networks...

In other words, CNN should be forced to call themselves what they really are... CON.

There's more...

Keith Olbermann: Much Ado About Something





Crossposted fromMY LEFT WING

Any sentient being could comprehend the collective gasp of shock that resounded through the media (and through the millions of us who remain tuned in to the ongoing Democratic primary) when Senator Hillary Clinton uttered her latest gaffe referencing the 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in an inept attempt to both avoid answering a question whose answer is obvious and to rationalise her refusal to withdraw from the Democratic campaign for its party's nomination.

By now, in fact, even people who haven't been paying attention know about Senator Clinton's most recent jawdropper. It'd be difficult not to know about it, given the avalanche of attention it's received in the past 24 hours.

I stipulate to the astonishing nature of Senator Clinton's comment. I stipulate to the propriety of calling it offensive in the extreme.

But Mr. Olbermann, to quote... well, you: You have gone too far.



There's more...

Keith Olbermann, A Former Hero

I used to really like Keith Olbermann. Sadly he has strayed from the great canon of journalism, objectivity. When he isn't involved
in his humorous, if ego-laden, spat with Bill-O, he is in constant Hillary attack mode. I simply can't stand watching anymore. He puts an anti-Hillary spin in every political question, every discussion.

I appreciated his early denunciation of the war and his refusal to join the lemming like press corps in the drumbeat to conflict. However he has taken to bashing Hillary at every opportunity. I can only conclude that there is some misogynist demon he is dealing with (or rather not dealing with). Mere political difference could not explain this level of vitriol.

His shtick used to be novel and funny. Now he seems a bit like a left leaning Denis Miller, a tad pedantic, and more than a tad repetitive. Keith Olbermann is rapidly becoming the worst journalist ......IN THE WOOOOORLD!
 

There's more...

Keith Olbermann is a classy guy

   If you say something dumb, It's polite to say "I'm sorry, that was dumb". He just apologized for the whole "take her into a room" thing, gave it some context. I thought that was really upfront of him. It did come out pretty "mangled", to use the popular term.

There's no reason we can't be civil, is there?

Obama 08

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads