DOWNLOAD (23)

PLAY (55)

From Race to the White House Oct. 27, 2008. David Gregory asks senior McCain advisor Nicole Wallace about whether Sarah Palin has been a drag on the ticket or not and this is her response.

Wallace: Well look the voters are going to make their choice. And I think in a week they're going to look at one ticket which ah, you know certainly at the top of the ticket you have the most liberal person ever to be nominated by the Democratic party and you have a running mate who's guaranteeing America and Americans that, that President, President Obama if he should win will be tested by the world. And that is certainly on the menu. If someone wants their wealth to be redistributed. If they believe success should be taken from those who achieve the American dream and handed out to others. That is on the menu. On the other side...

Gregory: But he's also going to tax, part of his plan is to reduce taxes for 95% of those paying. So he does raise them on the top earners but he also is cutting.

Wallace: Listen David even that has been revealed to be, to be not exactly what Barack Obama describes it as. To say you're going to give 95% of Americans tax relief. The, only 60% of those people pay taxes.

(Update)..Our own Jon Perr adds:

In regurgitating the now-tired McCain talking point, Wallace conveniently ignores the payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare paid by virtually all American workers starting with the first dollar they earn. More duplicitous still, Wallace happily forgets to mention that many working families pay no income taxes thanks to the Earned Income Tax Credit long supported by leaders in both parties, including Ronald Reagan and his self-proclaimed “foot soldier,” John McCain.

Jon has more on that here: McCain Blasts Reagan, Self as Socialist

  Is there some sort of prize being given to the reporter who can best spew Karl Rove talking points about Obama?  I mean, even without a secret ballot, you gotta give the trophy to David "White House" Gregory:

GREGORY:  Yet, Jay, you know that conservatives are beginning to make an argument here about Obama, that he's famous for being famous, that he's a light weight, that he's presumptuous, that he's self-absorbed, and that there's something mysterious about him.  All this talk about whether it's weirdness or that you can't quite nail down what his core is all about, is to say there's question mark above this guy's head.  Until you get that answered, you have to vote for the guy you know and trust.  That's McCain. 

Download | play   Download | play   (h/t Heather)

Rachel Maddow almost succeeds in talking over the prevailing windbags in this segment, but is barely able to get a word in as the gentlemen swoon over the McCain We All Know So Well.   But Rachel?  Nevermind the nine houses and the five hundred dollar shoes, what about the anti-choice platform plank and the foul-mouthed temper?  We've only just begun to know all about that...

  Attention liberals and progressives: This is how you shut down Republican foreign policy talking points. During the "Face Off" segment on "Race for the White House" today, Rachel absolutely eviscerated every pre-packaged argument Noah Oppenheim had to offer about McCain's supposed strong suit. 

Download | play   Download | play  

Here is just a small taste of the smackdown:

Maddow: "Noah, when it gets down to concrete issues, and when it gets down to making a judgment call, I think if people are looking at Bush and McCain in deciding to go after Osama bin Laden by invading and occupying for five years a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 -- or -- actually going after Osama bin Laden where he is, probably in Pakistan, I think people will probably go with the latter judgment.

Oppenheim: "Are you suggesting an invasion of Pakistan?"

Maddow: "He hasn't said he would invade Pakistan. He said he would go after Osama bin Laden where he is instead of outsourcing the fight against al Qaeda to General Musharraf who happily took our billions of dollars worth military aid and then gave al Qaeda and the Taliban safe haven in the tribal regions. So go after bin Laden or fight Iraq? I'd take the former."

Ouch. Remember when President Bush said this in his 2004 State of the Union address?:

"America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country. "

The same people who defended President Bush and attacked Senator Kerry back then are now attacking Senator Obama for stating that, as President, his policy will be to pursue Osama bin Laden wherever he is, even if that means we have to go into Pakistan against Musharraf's wishes. How is that possibly a controversial concept? Are these right-wingers really arguing that we need a "permission slip" in order to hunt down the man responsible for 3000+ Americans?

Thank the media gods for Rachel Maddow.

Download | play    Download | play   (mash up courtesy of Heather)

So John McCain had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week this week. I mean, it was really bad, from having to distance himself from his buddy and economic advisor Phil Gramm, to fumbling badly on questions regarding women's health, disabled rights, veteran's health benefits, Social Security,  to lame jokes on killing Iranians.  All in one week.  That would be enough to sink other candidacies, but we're talking Iron John McCain and his water-carrying media legions.

Those legions clearly include David Gregory.  In fact, McCain's almost constant missteps and fumbles need not be mentioned by Karl Rove's dancing partner.  A far more fascinating conversation could be made by asking his exclusively conservative panel of Michelle Bernard, Michael Smerconish, Tony Blankley and Harold Ford, Jr. (c'mon, be honest, Harold Ford is as conservative as any other person up there) if Obama has "lost his glow."

Um, excuse me?  What weird criteria for concern trolling is this?  Granted, the liberal blogosphere is less than happy with some of Obama's choices of late, however, Gregory devoted a full 15 minutes to the question of the "glow" of Obama, even though halfway in the middle, he shows that Obama's polling better than ever.  Clearly, David, that would indicate that Obama's "glow" appears to be not only undimmed, but growing.  Perhaps the smarter--or at least more reality-based-- question would be to ask how many more stumbles John McCain must make before we can stop trying to treat him as anything more than a joke.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

One of my kids is home sick with strep and was bundled up on the sofa as I watched the primary coverage last night. Her question to me is what the talking heads could possibly find to discuss for the six or more hours of primary scheduling. Prescient one, my kid. Because as it turned out, things got a little punchy very early on, especially with the Race to the White House panel of David Gregory, Eugene Robinson, Rachel Maddow and Pat Buchanan.

Buchanan simply could not concede to the others that there are different voter motivations between primary and general elections, and for that reason, those who are counting Hillary Clinton out now are lying to themselves. Rachel Maddow tries to contextualize where Barack goes from here and Buchanan won't have it, telling her to stop with the "Marxist dialectic."

Maddow: What he needs to be saying is listen, in these big states that Pat keeps listing, sure when it’s two Democrats dividing the electorate, I’m not always winning. But I’m winning the overall race. I’m winning pledged delegates. I’m winning the money race. I’m winning the enthusiasm race. And I have a better chance against John McCain. They’re all talking about Republicans, they’re not talking about winning over white ethnic voters who aren’t going to come over to them in the general either.

Buchanan: Why can’t you beat Hillary Clinton with all her negatives? You got more money, biggest crowds in history. You got the enthusiasm. Every guy in the media says you’re the nominee and you can’t beat her in one of the big ten states in the country.

Maddow: There is no connection between his inability to beat Hillary Clinton and whether or not he can beat John McCain…two totally different kinds of races….

Buchanan: Let me tell you…you may be….Look, let’s hold the Marxist dialectic…you may believe right now that this thing is over, but there’s a lot of these super-delegates gotta be sitting there, saying…if I were a super-delegate for Barack, I’d say “I’m worried. Can this guy beat McCain [unclear], ‘cause I don’t know right now.”

Other than being rude, I'm not sure what Buchanan meant by that, and evidently, neither did anyone on the set either.

Today on "Race to the White House" Rachel Maddow and Joe Scarborough got into a little argument after Rachel called him out for being rude and interrupting her when she criticized John McCain. At the end of the show, when guests are supposed to make a final prediction about the presidential race, Scarborough instead opted to take a shot at Rachel. After Rachel gives her response, Scarborough is nowhere to be found.

Download | play Download | play

Scarborough: I think I may blow all my time to respond to Rachel. I don't get engage in "Crossfire"-type debates. [...] Again, I don't do Crossfire, so if we want to yell back and forth, then Rachel will have to find somebody else to do that.

Rachel: Joe, I wasn't trying to yell back and forth with you. I was starting to make my point and you cut me off before I started my first sentence.

(a few moments later, sans Scarborough)

Rachel: Me and Joe are gonna get a beer and hash this all out.

UPDATE: Jeremy Gaines tells the Huffington Post:

"Joe didn't walk off. He chose not to participate in the final couple of minutes of the discussion because he felt the conversation didn't fit his role as a political analyst."

What a weak excuse. Joe's job as a "political analyst" is to analyze the political race. That's what the entire show is about. Rachel got under his skin, plain and simple. It was probably when she made that face after he said he didn't want to be condescending, which he was clearly being.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

On Race to the White House with David Gregory, the punditocracy was all aflutter at Colin Powell's interview with ABC's Good Morning America in which he refrained from endorsing any candidate but made some positive statements about Barack Obama. So naturally, the media decides that the topic should be whether Powell will endorse Obama. Even though he's said he hasn't decided on any one candidate. The Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti opines:

Continetti: It’s possible that Powell will endorse Obama, although I think it’s more likely that he’ll refuse to endorse any candidate. And one reason is that he obviously knows John McCain well and they’ve come together on the torture issue, if you recall. They’re both opponents of aggressive interrogation techniques. So I think it’s more likely that Powell just sits this one out and perhaps awaits for maybe a position in the next Democratic administration.

Gregory: Do you think he’d be willing to serve?

Continetti: I think so. I think if called under the right circumstances…certainly, from someone like Obama who of course represents a huge milestone historically, but also wants to show he can reach out to Republicans in some fashion, even if they’re disgruntled Republicans, like Gen. Powell.

So Powell and McCain have bonded over their mutual stance against torture? Funny, that. None of the talking heads seem particularly concerned that neither Powell nor McCain actually did anything to stop torture when they had the opportunity.

And while this notion that Powell is a "disgruntled" Republican may well be true (I know a lot of Republicans that are disgusted by what the neo-cons have done to their party), where does Continetti get this whole 'waiting for the next Democratic administration' trial balloon? Why should any man who held up cartoon pictures of mobile WMD labs in front of the UN ever have credibility in any administration?

Will Bunch thinks that Obama should reject and denounce Powell's endorsement, should it be offered.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Silent Patriot)

I saw this video Joe Sudbay posted this morning and thought it was worth passing along. Rachel Maddow tried to point out the fallacies in Joe Scarborough's glowing, fact-free praise of John McCain on MSNBC's Race For The White House.

The Scar continues to spew this ridiculous media narrative that John McCain is a "maverick," completely disregarding the myriad of flip flops the aging Arizona senator has made over the past year. Rachel tries  to put him in his place, reminding him that McCain has been pandering to the right on all the major issues including permanent tax cuts, immigration and torture, but all Scarborough does is tell her that she doesn't understand the Republican party.  True dat, since she is the lone voice of reason and we all know that facts have a liberal bias.  Scarborough loves to steamroll Mika Brzezkinski on his morning show, but as you'll see from this video, his bullying style gets him nowhere with Maddow.

Partial transcript  with links to facts below the fold

Continue reading »

MSNBC debuted the program Race To The White House today in Tucker's old time slot and the review from the C&L staff is mixed at best. We realize that it's the first run for this show, but the faces and format are all familiar and there is definitely room for improvement. Host David Gregory does an admirable job, although he loses control of the panel, allowing the lone wingnut to dominate the conversation by yelling and spewing delusional talking points over the other panelists -- something we were hoping to see less of.

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

Rachel Maddow, Eugene Robinson and Chuck Todd were spot on, as usual. Where the show stumbles is the presence of Joe Scarborough and his rampant, fact-free ranting which drops the IQ of the show by double digits. The panel discusses the tanking U.S. economy and the mortgage meltdown and the Scar defends President Bush saying it wasn't deregulation that caused the current crisis, it was greedy homeowners:

Scar: "This is not the type of economy it was in 1992 when Bill Clinton got elected. It's not the economy stupid, yet, for most voters out there."

Gregory:"Rachel, there's a big disagreement about that."

Maddow:"Yeah, Joe, if you were running for reelection on the basis of a platform right now that the economy's actually secretly awesome, we just can't tell, I don't think that you'd be reelected. [snip]

Scar:"This did not happen because of deregulation, this happened because homeowners got more home than they could afford, they got interest only loans, they gambled wildly because they wanted to turn it around and make hundreds of thousands of dollars and guess what? The market changed! [snip] You know what, no consequences. Gamble, go to Vegas, lose your money and you know what? We're going to blame it on GEORGE BUSH!"

Joe has his own MSNBC morning show where he can yell and brow beat his co-hosts all he wants, isn't that enough? The cheesy graphics are distracting and the sound effects and music are a little annoying. We give Race For The White House a C+. Lose the Scar and it automatically jumps into B territory.

UPDATE: The Huffington Post has another clip from the same show with Scarborough getting caught on-air stuffing a brownie in his face. Watch the clip here.