Chris Matthews: Serious Senate Run or MSNBC Contract Gambit?

Chris Matthews' Senate Run:
Serious Bid or Contract Contrivance?




What's a Left Wing Talking Head to Do?

---

Chris Matthews, the Hardball Boy, is contemplating a run for the U.S. Senate.

Or not.

From Matthews inches closer to Senate run:

Chris Matthews is dead serious about running for the Senate in Pennsylvania — and is shopping for a house in the state and privately discussing quitting MSNBC as proof of his intense interest, according to NBC colleagues, political operatives and friends.

Politico's MICHAEL CALDERONE & JOSH KRAUSHAAR think it might just be a "negotiations ploy to jack up his contract" on the part of Matthews.

Matthews is receiving some pressure to step down from his "Hardball" spot if he truly is committed to making a run for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Arlen Specter (R-PA).

If Matthews is serious about running, some within the network hope he commits to the Pennsylvania Senate race sooner rather than later. Otherwise, his nightly presence on “Hardball” provides easy fodder to critics fueling the narrative that MSNBC is in the tank for the Democratic party. After NBC News was stung by criticism during the presidential campaign — charged with bias resulting from the antics of more outspoken personalities on MSNBC — staffers worry the situation will be repeated over the next six months.

Reactions are mostly skeptical.

Sister Toldjah, Chris Matthews sets example other partisan journalists should follow:

I applaud Matthews for taking into serious consideration the possibility he’d need to leave the network in order to run for Senate (of course, he should have left it much, much earlier - but then again he wouldn’t have been able to help his fellow mediots with getting Obama elected, would he?). In fact, I encourage every other journalist out there who has a strong bias for one party or the other - who thinks it’s their “job” to help that party - to please follow Matthews’ example, retire from your profession and start pursuing your dream of officially working to advance that party’s principles - whether it be as a politico, an advisor or aide, or working for an advocacy group, or starting your own. Make your biases known upfront instead of continuing to hide behind a phony banner of “objectivity.”

Alex Paranee--Gawker--Chris Matthews to Hold Breath

Until He Becomes a Senator (or Gets a Raise):
There's no doubt that Chris wants to be a Senator—it's been his dream since he was a little boy, to join that undemocratic and increasingly deadlocked and feeble deliberative body—but the guy is also smart about the realities of politics, if not the realities of reality. Running against a five-term senior Senator would be tough for any Democrat, but "any Democrat" would probably have better luck against Specter than a man who's been on the world's craziest cable news network saying some of the craziest things on that network for years.

Jules Crittenden, Jackass-A-Palooza takes the long view:

Full disclosure: As a professional tabloid newspaperman and frothing rightwing blogger, I have a vested interest in chaotic hilarity, if that is what the American people in their wisdom and through their political processes determine is what will best serve their interests.

Other reactions to the Matthews' bid-maybe-not at Memeorandum.

Is this a serious story? Is this a contract gambit?

Who knows--other than Chris Matthews?

It might be hard slogging it out every night on MSNBC for an audience that approaches the number of people on Friday night at Denny's.

It might be hard playing second banana to the Olberdude.

It might be hard getting anyone outside the DailyKOS to take him seriously.

But it's still easier money than actually having to convince people to vote for him in order to get the job of Chris Matthews' dreams.


by Mondo Frazier
image: jossip

MSM Obama Confession Time: WashPo, NewsWeek, MSNBC, LA Times

Bias on Record:
Washington Post
Chris Matthews
Newsweek
Los Angeles Times

---

Mainstream Media: Yes We Can!

Deborah Howell, the ombudsman at the Washington Post completely agrees [An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage]:

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.

Human Gaffe Machine Joe Biden?

One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission.

John at Power Line wasn't surprised [Ho Hum] and offers a possible solution.

Howell finds that the Post's coverage of Sarah Palin was especially biased. To which my response is, tell us something we didn't already know. Anyone who can still be shocked by newspapers' liberal bias hasn't been paying attention for a long time. The Washington Post is a Democratic newspaper, and a good one, for the most part. As I've said before, the Post is the most respectable voice of the Democratic Party. But it would be foolish to expect objectivity from what is essentially an arm of the Democratic Party.

Conservatives should stop talking about media bias and start founding (or buying) some newspapers of our own. Of course, until that happens we'll probably still complain about bias from time to time.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air [Right on time!] sums up DBKP's position on the matter exactly.

Why didn’t the Post want to look at the files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama’s only executive experience prior to his run for the presidency? The media never bothered to make a hundredth of the effort on Obama that they did with Palin, and they had two years to do it.

That’s the issue Howell should have addressed in her column. We already know that the Post gave imbalanced coverage of Obama and McCain, as did most of the rest of the media. And now Howell gives the mea culpa in her first column after Election Day, when it’s far too late to do anything about it. Where was Howell during the last three months? Why wait until the election is over to speak up? That’s an answer in itself.

Gateway Pundit has a video of MSNBC's Chris Matthews. [Now That the Election is Over... Media Admits Bias For Obama] Matthews declares that his job as a journalist is to continue his Grand Obama Pimp he perfected during his election coverage.

There will be no traditional press honeymoon between Chris Matthews and Barack Obama, Matthews already having been guilt of the press equivalent of premarital sex.

Journalists not only love new...
They love Democrats.
Sarah Palin was new but they raked her over the coals.
Such is the demise of our mainstream media.
The one thing that is clear after this election-- If you want to find the truth you will have to go elsewhere for your news.

Two words-- Rashid Khalidi.

Jammie Wearing Fool, WaPo Ombudsman: Yes, We Were Completely In the Tank for Obama :

They found plenty of space to go over McCain's health in agonizing detail but ignored Obama's drug use, shady connections and mysterious undergrad years.

I'm sure they'll make up for their grossly imbalanced coverage now that their guy is safely in office. And I have an oceanfront spread in Wyoming up for sale.

It's to the Washington Post's credit to admit that its coverage emanated from within the tank. We may see more stories like this.

More likely, we'll see the usual apologia from the MSM about how they were non-biased stalwarts looking out for the interests of the unwashed sheeple who remain as their customers.

---

NEW YORK Times



Since the NY Times ceased being a serious journalistic endeavor some time ago, we'll let its horrific coverage of Election 2008 pass without comment.

---

LA Times and the Khalidi Video

The Lost Angeles Times' refusal to release the video of the Obamas, Rashid Khalidi and Bill Ayers is well-documented. The LA Times previously had ordered its reporters not to write on their blogs about John Edwards getting caught leaving his mistress Rielle Hunter's room at the Beverly Hilton--even after it had been confirmed by Fox News.

* Obama, Khalidi Hidden Video: The Evolution of the LA Times Excuses
* LA Times Obama-Rashid Khalidi Video: $175,000 Reward Offered for Tape
* Obama-Khalidi Tape: Blogger Obtains Quotes from Hidden Video UPDATED
* John Edwards-Rielle Hunter Love Child: LA Times Censors Reporters on Story

As the LA Times mulls over further lay-offs, it might examine its refusal to provide its remaining customers with a product they seek: news.

---

NewsWeek Keeps its Obama Thoughts to Itself--until AFTER the Election

Mikes America, at Flopping Aces, tipped off a post election admission from Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas of Newsweek on Charlie Rose: Newsweek Editors: Obama a “Creepy,” “Deeply Manipulative,” “Creature”

Why didn’t they say this in their magazine BEFORE the election?

Yesterday I shared with you the audio of Tom Brokaw being interviewed by Charlie Rose where both men admit they don’t know who Obama really is or what he intends to do in office. Now, a post election admission from Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas of Newsweek; also interviewed by Charlie Rose. Audio is provided with commentary by Rush Limbaugh (transcript):

FA provides the Brokaw video, as well as a transcript, ending with the following observation by MA:

At what point will Meacham and Thomas, along with Brokaw and so many others face the fact that they committed journalistic malpractice by hiding the character concerns they are only now sharing about Obama? Were they just tooooo busy digging dirt on Sarah Palin’s children and Joe the Plumber to tell the American people what a “creepy,” “manipulative,” “creature” Obama is?

Yes, they kept all of this out of their publication before the election.

Again, we'll give Meachum and Thomas credit for admitting their bias.

As with the others, they get absolutely no credit for being journalists--their professed profession.

---

by Mondo Frazier
images: dbkp file

New Hampshire Polling Problems

You Racist Bastards!


It turns out that the polling information about the New Hampshire primary was not wrong. It was the voters who were wrong. It wasn't flawed methodologies or undecided voters, it was racism. You see, whenever the polling turns out to be wrong, it is inevitably the fault of racist pigs. And we all know how racist New Hampshire is.

Please don't get confused. It wasn't racism when the polls got it wrong in 2004. That was just everyone's super duper love for Commander Guy. And it wasn't racism in 2006. That was everyone just voting for a change--albeit a confused, drug-induced vote for change.

But in New Hampshire, it was racism, pure and simple. What evidence do I have other than Chris Matthews' man crushes and rants? Well, let's just take a look at the facts.

New Hampshire is almost 97% white.
Only 1% of New Hampshire is Jewish.
New Hampshire is home to the White Mountains.
The capital of New Hampshire is Concord. The Concorde was a white jet.
The largest city in New Hampshire is Manchester. Melissa Manchester is a white singer.
The highest point in New Hampshire is Mt. Washington. Washington owned slaves.
The McDonald's brothers were from New Hampshire. Black people love McDonalds. They get fat and die. McDonald's hates black people.

The evidence is overwhelming. Barack Obama lost in New Hampshire not because 20% of the electorate was undecided, but because those cross-burning, black-hating, lynching-loving bastards of New Hampshire couldn't bring themselves to vote for a Negro.

I hope you're proud of yourself, New Hampshire!

New Hampshire State Fair

by Blanca DeBree
[images: Blancasphere;thinkorswim]
Source: You Racist Bastards!

Other New Hampshire posts from the Blancasphere: * New Hampshire Primary, Part Tredici * New Hampshire Primary, Part 0011000100110000 * New Hampshire Primary, Part viii * New Hampshire Primary, Part V

Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

NBC: Nothing But Crap

The network of Keith Olbermann, Chris Mathews and Rosie O'Donnell has finally found something really objectionable--a salute to U.S. troops.

WASHINGTON (AP) - NBC has rejected a TV ad by Freedom's Watch, a conservative group that supports administration policy in Iraq, that asks viewers to remember and thank U.S. troops during the holiday season.

NBC said it declined to air the ad because it refers to the group's Web site, which the network said was too political, not because of the ad's message.

"Anybody in the world who would look at this ad would come away with nothing other than we should be thankful for their service," Freedom's Watch president Brad Blakeman said.

The spot was to be part of a seven-figure campaign that includes newspaper ads and television commercials. The ads are to run on CNN and Fox News Channel and are running in various newspapers. The New York Times ran a full-page Freedom's Watch ad Friday that said "Thank You!" and depicted a soldier reading a letter. The newspaper ad also contained the Web site address.

Alan Wurtzel, NBC's head of standards and practices, said the network decided not to run the Freedom's Watch ad because the group insisted that the spot contain the URL address of its Web site.

The group's home page links to another Freedom's Watch Web page that lists nonprofit organizations that are sending care packages to soldiers and that suggests other ways of expressing support.

It also contains a welcoming message that states: "For too long, conservatives have lacked a permanent political presence to do battle with the radical special interests groups and their left-wing allies in government."

"We have a policy that prohibits acceptance of advertising that deals with issues of public controversy," Wurtzel said. "This particular ad, in and of itself, is fine. It thanks the troops for their action overseas. We asked them to eliminate a URL address where a person is asked to contact elected officials and told not to cut and run on the war on terror."

NBC rejected a previous Freedom's Watch ad that addressed funding for the troops.

"It's a long-term policy, it goes back decades," Wurtzel said of NBC's stance of declining controversial issue advertising.

He suggested that Freedom's Watch did not alter the ad in order to force NBC to reject it and thus get media attention.

--Source: AP - NBC Rejects "Salute to the Troops" Ad from Conservative Group
NBC can dance and spin all they like: people will watch the video, read the story and come to their own conclusions on this.

And they will most likely decide that they won't end their apathy concerning either NBC or MSNBC's network televised offerings.

Maybe when NBC viewership sinks below that of the Fatty Foods Network or Breathing for Credit Channel, someone will have the sense to let a businessman run the network.

Instead of the rabidly Left ideologues in charge now.

by Mondoreb
[graphic, notes: RidesAPaleHorse]

Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.