Is that how you remember it? Actually, it went down with a blow by blow debunking of that myth and virtual silence afterward. Oh wait. It was silent, because everyone, except you and roadkit, have me on ignore.
Sorry I'm late on this, but here's another Andrea Mitchell doozy. How her or any lib thinks they can take the high road on outscourcing is laughable. http://www.businessinsider.com/john...mitchell-obama-outsourcing-msnbc-video-2012-7
To paraphrase Prince Charles, I would like to be reincarnated as Alex Wagner's tampon. I agree that Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes are serious journalists who do their job well, but I just cannot listen to them. Something about their pedantic delivery and aggressive cheerfulness.... I just can't take it.
Hardball is my favorite show on MSNBC. It's mostly political analysis and relatively little cheerleading a la Reverand Al, so it's pretty easy to watch in my opinion.
I haven't watched in a long time, but they did selectively, Chris likes to have that got you moment so he would play hardball with dems or reps. But obviously most of the time the go after conservatives. Same as FOX that will go once in a while after a republican, but most of the time they go after Democrats.
I've found Rachel to be increasingly harder to watch, not for any substantive reason, but merely because she has become so repetitive when making a point. She'll repeat a phrase several times for emphasis and it just strikes me as overly dramatic and affected. And it's clearly intentional as this occurs when she's reading prepared material off the teleprompter, not during interviews. As for Chris, I don't really find his delivery overly cheerful or pedantic. I think he's one of the most self-critical television journalists out there and aims to always be questioning his own assumptions. One of the things I like most about him is that when the discussions start getting into the weeds of technical detail -- often about wonkish economic issues -- he will gently interrupt the conversation to establish the basic terms about which they're speaking. In addition, if he feels that someone is trying to spin his audience, he will respectfully but forcefully push back to demonstrate that the reality of the situation is under dispute. The one legitimate criticism I could see is that he speaks too quickly, but that seems to stem from his genuine desire to get in as much discussion within the 2 hour constraint of each show. Of course, it's possible that I have a blind spot with Chris as I almost always agree with him on ideology as well as reasoning. This may be due to our having so much in common, from the same musical tastes, having lived most of our lives in New York City and Chicago, having a father who was a seminarian, and being hopeless Cubs fans. Yes, yes...I know.
So let me see. You claim that the Shirley Sherrod story - the fact hat Breitbert edited the footage to ensure she looked racist -- is false? Sorry Steamer, but you need to look in the mirror and ask yourself to come clean. The sun does rise in the East.
I have seen hardball never saw him go after a liberal. If he did it before he doesn't do it anymore. On the other hand Chris Walace goes after liberals and conservatives. Best show of it's kind on tv.
Hey, I agree with both Rachel and Chris 100 percent of the time. It's nothing personal... I just can't stand the sound of either of their voices. Maybe that sounds immature, but I just can't help it! Like how everyone has certain singers they just can't listen to. I agree that Rachel's delivery like that is totally scripted, because when Chris used to fill in for her, it was exactly the same. He was most likely reading her lines.
Someday (I hope) you'll come to understand most of the people we see on TV talking about politics want nothing from politics except really excellent cocktail parties and a chance to hang out with famous people. The next time Andrea Mitchell thinks about politics in terms of people who aren't like her and her friends will be the first time.
We have a new leader in the clubhouse for absolute worst (co-)host of a show on MSNBC, having now surpassed Rev. Al and Ed Schultz. S.E. Cupp, one of the four co-hosts of The Cycle, which replaced The Dylan Ratigan Show, is such a joke. Her three co-hosts react to her stupidity with an entirely appropriate amount of disdain ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/48215090#48215090 I'd be surprised if she lasts longer than a couple months.
Yeah, C Cupp is a smart sorority chick at best. But I'd still watch her over Wolf Blitzer. Wolf's like a 60s newsreader with 1/4 the personality.
I lasted about 30 seconds. The idea of reading your copy is to make it seem like you're not actually reading. I doubt if she's read much of anything outside of Cliff's Notes summaries of Ayn Rand. But you're right that Wolf is turning into a re-incarnation of Ted Baxter.
I bet my left testicle and half my right one that S.E. will write a book about her conversion to Christianity in the next 10 years.