BTW, I didn't see Karl Rove mentioned in his comment....maybe not complete ?
http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/07/557391.aspxKO, Tonight you embarrassed yourself in your coverage of Hillary.
Tomorrow night you might consider naming yourself as the Worst Person in the World. Gary (Sent Monday, January 07, 2008 9:13 PM)
**************************
You are right, it is all about Obama and his message and nothing else. If Hillary breaths wrong,
you cover it, but Obama....no report tonight on his robocalls in New Hampshire against Hillary which are against the law. I guess Hillary, is just supposed to bow down to the great Orator and not criticize him. Get in the boat Hillary how dare you criticize...you woman you. Barack is such a weak man, that all the men have to defend him from the woman.....We had two men at the debate going after Hillary, even the guy running the debate said so. But when Hillary struck back - they then turned on her and said she is not supposed to attack them. I didn't hear Keith mention how mean it was at the debate on Saturday to tell Hillary, the people of
New Hampshire didn't find her likeable.
Did Keith even bother to find out if
Hillary was responding to a question when she used
Al Queda? The LBJ quote to me sounded like she was saying look what a President did, look at the difference a President can make. But what did the press turn it into? How dare Hillary have the nerve to say that.....when a black man is running?
When I saw Hillary break down today, I thought my
God she is exhausted, she never would have let that happen ever. What were the first press comments,
"her handlers probably told her to go have a cup of coffee and cry on camera." If she shows her feelings, she is putting it on. If she holds in her feelings.....she hard and has no feelings. You are all building Obama into a larger than life character
and if he wins the Presidency, you will all tear him down. No one can live up to the pass you are giving him on everything but you can bet the Republicans won't give him a pass.
Karen, Chicago, IL (Sent Monday, January 07, 2008 10:00 PM)
**************************
Keith, Keith, Keith, I wasn't comfortable when you were obviously biased toward the Clintons, but must you change course and join the piling on the night before an important primary???? First of all you go off on Hillary for all of a sudden playing the 9-11 card. Her statement about Gordon Brown didn't start today. I've heard her mention that scenario before. And she is not saying that electing her would keep the situation from happening, only that she is most likely to have a clue as to what to do when it did. Also, you followed that up with a supposed "positive" clip from Obama's speech -- excuse me, but the man listed nothing but negatives about "people who...." What makes his statement positive and hers negative????? I know you have an anti-Bush bias but you usually at least acknowledge the nuances. I cannot believe you labeled Obama as positive!!!!
Peggy Kruse, Florissant (St. Louis County), Missouri (Sent Monday, January 07, 2008 10:02 PM)
*****************************
I'm not a Clinton supporter, and I don't take issue with most of Keith's points about her, but I'm very concerned about how her showing emotion is being portrayed. As Think Progress notes at
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/07/clinton-tears/: "The media’s excoriation and mocking of Clinton contrast with their treatment of prominent conservative politicians who have cried in the past. Their tears, according to these pundits, are 'genuine,' 'poignant,' and 'extraordinary.'"
They provide several examples that should make you wonder why Clinton is being portrayed as weak or manipulative but the male Republican politicians who've cried in public demonstrated strength or confidence in their "manliness."
Still rooting for Kucinich, Monterey, CA (Sent Monday, January 07, 2008 10:05 PM)
***************
Keith
I've really enjoyed your show and you are usually right on. I was very disappointed to see you take the low road tonight in your comments about Senator Clinton. You and others in the media are treating Senator Obama like the chosen prince and quite frankly, are not questioning his platform as you are others. He is full of rhetoric and hope but not much substance. Even my friends who like Obama said Clinton is the more solid candidate.
K St Paul (Sent Monday, January 07, 2008 10:07 PM)
****************
Why is it an attack on Obama when Hillary is pointing out his shortcomings on issues?
There seems to be a definate double-standard going on here. Obama & Edwards have both been attacking Hillary, and no one bats an eye, but when she points out differences in policies, suddenly she is going negative. Obama went negative long ago & the only reason he has backed off that is because he's up in the polls.
I liked him at first, but he has disappointed me. He has been hypocritical, especially when he criticized Hillary's vote on Iran when he didn't even show up to vote (undoubtedly, so he couldn't be tied down to one side or the other). He may be talking about change, but he is playing the game as well as any other DC insider, but the press is giving him a free ride.
What Hillary said today, in that diner, is true. The press is treating the campaign like it's a sporting event; veering here & there based on what is making the best story for them. But this isn't about their ratings & profits: This is about the future of our democracy.
You guys ned to start holding EVERY candidate to the same sstandards.
gothamtomato, nyc (Sent Monday, January 07, 2008 10:37 PM)