DOWNLOADS: (227)

PLAYS: (3325)

Embed

(h/t Scarce)

Lil' Luke Russert made a fool of himself when he asked this offensive question to now-returning Nancy Pelosi about her role as the Democrats' chief House leader:

"Your colleagues privately say that your decision to stay on prohibits the party from having a younger leadership," Russert told Pelosi in a room packed with reporters. "What's your response?" A group of female lawmakers standing behind the Democratic leader immediately began to boo and heckle Russert.

One woman shouted "discrimination" at him several times."Oh, you've always asked that question," Pelosi sarcastically said to Russert, after a pause. "Except to Mitch McConnell." McConnell, who is the minority leader of the Senate, is 70 years old. Pelosi is 72 years old.

Pelosi suggested she was only asked the question because she is a woman. Raising children, she said, led her to start her political career later than her male colleagues.. "I knew that my male colleagues...had a jump on me because they didn't have children to stay home [with]," she said, calling Russert's question "offensive." "You got to take off about 14 years from me because I was home raising a family."

Offensive for sure, but it shows something pretty revealing. Lil' Luke has no information about the different leadership moves that are being made in the Democratic party. If Pelosi stepped down, Steny Hoyer would be made leader, opening up a position for Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who would then become the new leader in waiting.

Laura Clawson at Kos writes:

You have to hand it to Nancy Pelosi. When emblem of establishment media nepotism Luke Russert asked if she shouldn't clear the way for younger leadership, being all old and stuff, she managed to both convey her disdain for the question (helped by cries of "discrimination" from some of the women of her caucus) and give a substantive answer that should make plenty of people, if not Baby Russert, think a little.Pelosi began by pointing to the men who are not asked if they are old and standing in the way of younger members—Mitch McConnell and Steny Hoyer alike. No, she's the one who gets the question.

But: "Let's for the moment honor it as a legitimate question although it's quite offensive but you don't realize it I guess."

DOWNLOADS: (873)

PLAYS: (4441)

Embed

Howard Kurtz did a segment on something I've wanted for a long time: Networks holding people accountable for what they say on our airwaves. A TV Ombudsman.

The more this idea gets out there, the more important it becomes to push it home -- although it would be a real miracle if it did happen. MSNBC did correct Giuliani's lie because it was a lie. Fox News ignored it because of partisanship. Kurtz should stop with the false equivalent comparisons. MSNBC does not promote an agenda for 24 hours seven days a week like Fox does, nor have they promoted a movement to overthrow a sitting president.

UPDATE: Michael Calderone got a response from David Gregory:

Over the weekend, I wrote about some recent criticism of the Sunday shows, along with suggestions such as running a fact-check online or mixing up the regular guests. And the piece prompted a few interesting responses, with more suggestions for utilizing technology better.

The Nation's Ari Melber noted that NBC didn't respond to Jay Rosen's fact-check suggestion that he addressed to "Meet the Press" EP Betsy Fischer a couple weeks ago, but David Gregory responded in a statement for my piece. "That's a big shift from refusing to respond at all," Melber wrote. "And while it's an improvement, it also shows how these programs tend to be more responsive to other members of the media than to their audience."...read on

UPDATE II: Nisha Chittal writes: What the Sunday Morning Shows Need Is A New Media Makeover

What troubled me the most was a quote in Calderone’s piece from Robert Thompson, a professor at Syracuse, who argued that the case for modernizing Sunday shows wasn’t that relevant because young people wouldn’t care enough to watch the shows anyway...

{}

I fully believe that the Sunday morning talk shows need a new media makeover, and I have a handful of ideas for how they can do so. I admit that I know absolutely nothing about what goes into the making of a political talk show. But what I do know is that my generation wants transparency, participation, and engagement in their political process – and their news. So here are my suggestions on how the Sunday shows might undertake a new media makeover that could finally usher them into the year 2010...read on

Nisha has a lot of nice suggestions, but without fact checking all these innovations are useless. It comes down to the truth. Sure, some things can be debated but not the core issue of a story. When Giuliani said America didn't have a domestic attack under George Bush that was a flat out lie and it needs to be cleaned up immediately and if need be, Rudy should be suspended from TV for a year. Do you think that would help things along? We need the media to do a better job. PERIOD.

CNN has the full transcript:

Kurtz: I talked on this program last week about whether all the Sunday shows and, indeed, all television programs should do more fact-checking of what guests say when politicians come and sit in those seats and make claims, some of which don't always bear that much relation to reality.

I want to play some sound. Senator Jim DeMint, the Republican from South Carolina, went on the "CBS Early Show," MSNBC's "Morning Joe," and he talked with Gloria Borger here on STATE OF THE UNION, making a charge about President Obama and the effort against terrorism.

Let me play that, and you're going to see this from Rachel Maddow's MSNBC program and how she took it on, on a factual basis.

Continue reading »

Could there ever be a Talk show Sunday without McCain or Lieberman? I think it's news when they don't appear, but CNN should be embarrassed for this "Exclusive" promotion.

This week, John's exclusive guests are Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) LIVE from Jerusalem. We'll get their insight on the foiled airline terror plot and President Obama's strategy on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I guess if McCain/Holy Joe travel to a new location then it makes them a hot item all over again. And doesn't the MSM realize that if it had been up to McCain, Lieberman would have been McCain's VP so in reality the networks are promoting the biggest f*&king losers of the 2008 election to an elevated media position? ABC has been a nonstop McCainathon, so CNN must have wanted in on the gagfest.

As C&L readers know, I'm a huge Buffy fan. So when I saw this article written by Bernie Quigley in The Hill, I was pretty interested.

What Obama can learn from Buffy

If Obama is to survive and prosper in the coming three years, he has to make the rising generations his own. The oldest story, Sir James G. Frazer and the anthropologists tell us, is that the new leader/hero must cut down the sacred tree of the old people, not fulfill their wishes. Darla must die for Buffy to become The Slayer. Victoria, the red queen, must get her head torn off before Bella can become the white queen. George Washington must cut down the tree of his ancestors before the revolution can occur. Obama’s first hagiographers, publicists and hacks, comparing him to Kennedy, Roosevelt and Lincoln, had it exactly backward.

Every generation’s hero must make the world his or her own; it will not be given; it must be taken. Obama’s world is no exception.

Neither Clinton nor Reagan made much traction in his first year, but they caught on. From what I could see from the dozens of young people who visited my house over the Christmas vacation, the rising generation still looks up to Obama and wishes him well. He still has time, but time is running out.

If you're going to use Buffy as a model to help Obama, then you really should know what you're talking about. First of all, Buffy didn't kill Darla, Angel did, as he helped thwart Darla's plan to win Angel's heart again and bring him back to "The Master."

"The Master," was an ancient Vampire with incredible powers, but was stuck in a mystical force field after he failed in his attempt to open up the Hell Mouth many years ago. He was the Big Bad in the first season. Buffy was already the Slayer before she went to Sunnydale when the series started.

I know Joss Wheedon might differ with my take, but it wasn't until she confronted The Master in the final episode to fulfill a prophesy that she was able to conquer her crippling fear of him. And it was that fear that was holding her back from truly blossoming into the most powerful Slayer of all. At one point she was so terrified of the Master that she wanted to quit being a Slayer altogether, but she finally accepted her fate and decided to face the Master in the end.

If Obama were truly a liberal transformative hero, but fear was holding him back from becoming the ultimate progressive warrior, then I could sort of buy the comparison. I don't see that, do you?

From the comment section of C&L:

Fleischer on CNN Tue, 11/03/2009 - 19:16 — fastfeat

Can we finally nix guests, hosts that call the Democratic Party the 'Democrat' Party?

I'm truly sick and tired of the hosts being limp-d*&ked on the terminology.

Networks that cover politics should at least have their "experts" get the name of the party they are talking about correct. Is that too much to ask? I know we all at times say "Democrat," but there's is a conscious effort to smear the party by the Karl Roves of the right. Is it OK if every Democratic strategist and party member refer to Republican party members as "Repukes?"

CNN Democratic Strategist: Yes, well the teabaggers led by Palin and Beck with help from the Club for Growth chased away Scozzafava, a moderate "Repuke" in NY-23 and replaced her with Doug Hoffman, a much crazier 'Repuke.' Now the Repukes are involved in a bitter civil war which will bode well for the Democratic Party.

I wonder if that would be acceptable to Joe Klein of CNN. I mean, he does book the most vile right wing teabagger of all with no reservations.