Olbermann on Kerry last night

[whometense]

Olbermann, if I'm not reading too much into it, seemed kindly inclined towards Kerry. Pundit Maragret Carlson sounded like every other pundit (is is something they put in the green room water at MSNBC?) - like a mindless hack.

Transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16056282/

OLBERMANN: Right now the field of potential Democratic candidates includes Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Al Gore, John Kerry, Obama, Bill Richardson and Tom Vilsack. The potential Republicans include Sam Brownback, Rudolph Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Joining us with her insights on the heavy weights, I‘ll get the word out yet, and the dark horses, “Bloomberg News” political columnist Margaret Carlson. Margaret, great thanks for your time tonight.

MARGARET CARLSON, “BLOOMBERG NEWS”: Delighted.

OLBERMANN: Two first term senators are the Democratic front runners. If I were a Democratic veteran or one of the governors, is there a way I have to out flank these two now?

CARLSON: Well, at this moment it‘s hard because they are the 800 pound gorillas in the race. It‘s amazing what Senator Obama has done, in that could you imagine anyone taking the spotlight off of Mrs. Clinton with all her money, her doing a surprisingly good job as senator. At least she surprised some people. And having all the money and all the name recognition in the field. And this guy comes in and steals a lot of her thunder, but there‘s only so much thunder, and these other people that you named are going to have a hard time getting attention in the short run.

OLBERMANN: And to one of the names that is most familiar, if not necessarily a front runner at this point, Senator John Kerry reportedly going to hold off for a while on his decision whether or not to try it again, possibly until late Spring. We‘ve had two presidential elections in which both the public and much of the media assessed candidates on such important criteria as who you would want to have a beer with. Is it possible now that the reason that was offered in the “Boston Globe” for his tabling of his decision here, the inflated dustup about the remarks about the president‘s intelligence and Iraq? Is that really going to matter in this or have voters gotten a little more serious than maybe the pundits and politicians are giving them credit for?

CARLSON: Well, you‘re right the botched joke was over blown. And what‘s a botched joke compared to a botched war. However, I think Democrats would hope that John Kerry might put off his decision forever, in that Democrats, unlike Republicans, don‘t like their losers. They want them to leave. Richard Nixon came back, Bob Dole, Ronald Reagan, but Democrats don‘t have the same feeling. And look, Al Gore had the decency to go off and either sulk for a while, teach for a while and then make a movie and stay out of the spotlight. John Kerry really hasn‘t retreated. His big foray was an unsuccessful one. I think Karl Rove and Republicans going after him so vociferously probably cleared him out of the race for a while. It may be why he‘s hiding out a little bit now, but may have done Democrats a favor in clearing out some of the underbrush.

BTW, Olbermann may be alone in that he did scuff up McCain's halo:

OLBERMANN: Margaret, on the other side of the ball, Senator McCain today blamed the departure of John Bolton, his resignation as U.N. ambassador, pending this vote that the Republicans have no chance of winning, on the Senate Democrats, rather than on say John Bolton. Is McCain really going overboard in this seeming kowtow to the right wing base and does that necessarily work, given the David Kuo book and everything that the right wing base found out in the last couple of months, is the right wing base not a little bit more sophisticated than it was a year ago?

In an editorial comment of my own, the "joke" fallout has really served to illuminate to me which broadccasters and radio personalities think hard about substance and resist being drawn into the easy snark. Olbermann is one of the very very few (in fact, he's the only one I can think of at the moment) goes for substance. Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, sad to day, have been a real disappointment in this department. Matthews has shown a relatively large amount of respect for Kerry personally - but I can only take him in small doses so I don't know how well he's handled the whole issue.

[beachmom]

1. I actually started taping him, and watched him last night.

The fast forward button is key with his show. Too much fluff for me, but I'd say the first 20 minutes are fairly worthwhile for news.

I'm not sure if he's as favorable to Kerry as much as VERY WISE to the Karl Rove bullshit factor. Keith can sniff it out in a matter of seconds, and he figured out what was going on with that joke crap on the day it happened. I find KO to be someone whose mission is to smack down the propaganda as quickly as he sees it. And "he insulted the troops" was pure and simple propaganda.

[whometense]

3. I really only watch the first segment,

and then read the paper while watching the rest out of the corner of my eye.

You're probably right about Keith. I guess there's such an overwhelming anti-Kerry prejudice on TV that his actual lack of bias comes off to me as semi-favorable.

[ginnyinWI]

6. I record Countdown too

And watch the first half usually--then FF the rest. Sometimes his "Special Comments" come at the end. I guess if some people have to have a dose of Brittany Spears to get them to watch a news show, it's worth it to have that stuff, and the funny stuff, thrown in.

I wouldn't call him solidly in the Kerry camp. He's keeping himself impartial. But the issues he constantly raises tell me that he's on the same page JK is.

BTW, here's my current news "diet":

BBC World News
Either ABC or NBC national news
Countdown
Larry King--IF he's got somebody interesting on (usually not!)
Local news, NBC affiliate, late edition
PBS Newshour

(Plus all JK appearances of course)

They all go on my DVR daily and get the FF treatment as needed!

[whometense]

2. One more thing I stumbled across a few days ago

that might help put the current state of affairs in perspective, was this NPR audio interview of Iowans right before the 2004 caucuses. Intelligent discussion, but it really puts you right back there in terms of how Kerry was regarded by most of the news people, pundits, and others not following the race closely on the ground.

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2004/01/20040115_a_main.asp

I found it fascinating.

[ginnyinWI]

7. the only thing that worries me this time:

He's run before, and for some people that's all they need to hear to discount his ability to win a second time around. How will they actually react to a second attempt? People are so biased in favor of someone new, maybe because they can project all sorts of powers onto that person? As well as all sorts of positions on issues.

[whometense]

8. I just wrote a comment to that exact point

on the thread about Kos.

If people listen to the likes of Margaret Carlson then he's cooked. But people didn't listen in 2004 and I doubt they'll listen now.

I really have no idea how things will shake out. It doesn't matter much to me at this point, anyway. My lot is cast with Kerry. If he doesn't run I don't see anyone out there that I will want to work hard for, though there are a few I will work hard against.

I think we just have to wait and see. It's readily apparent that there are a number of dems and the entire republican party who consider taking Kerry out a top priority. To me that says more than what the pundits mouth off about - why is he such a high priority? Seems obvious that he is a major threat. When the action really starts, and the candidates are moving around and talking to people and debating, that's when Kerry would move forward.

The most important aspect of keeping the primaries spread out and starting in SMALL states is the one-on-one people get with the candidates. And it's a point that is missed by just about every lefty freeper out there. Iowa and NH are used to the process, and they take it very very seriously. It really scares me to see everything getting so front-heavy. You need to see the candidates over time in order to figure out who they are.

[MBS]

10. I agree with you totally about the need to spread out the primaries

The current trend to front-loading and bunching together is just nuts. With media-driven politics already so much out of control, there has to be at least one point, early in the primary, where voters meet the candidates one on one. This is important not only for the voters and the voting process, but for the CANDIDATES.

I was involved in calling voters during Iowa caucus and NH primary, and I was TOTALLY impressed by the voters I talked to-- how much they cared about doing a good job, how aware they were of their responsibility, how well-informed they were.. especially in Iowa. I thought to myself more than once: this is the way the WHOLE election should be. Bunching up the primaries makes it harder than ever for voters and candidates to get to know each other.

[ginnyinWI]

11. the pundits think a lot of themselves.

In reality, most of these cable news programs are only being seen by a small fraction of the American population--like less than a million out of 300 million people in this country. And I'll bet that most of them are partisans like us who are already set on a party or candidate--so there you are.

I would guess that newspaper editorials are read by another small slice of the population--which is decreasing all the time.

The voters will decide during the primary elections. That's who he'll need to play to, by getting out there and showing them he's still in the fight.

[whometense]

14. That's right.

When you're online it's easy to lose track of what a relatively small universe this is.

Most people decide on their own based on factors that affect them personally - and are untouched by heated online rhetoric. Thank god.

[wisteria]

9. Those that supported him may need a reminder as to why, and

those who were unsure can really get to know the man. They didn't have a chance to do that the last time. The real deal for the people with leadership and experience tossed in.

[wisteria]

4. I have noticed that he allows them to have their say, but doesn't

respond- almost as if he knows something or he has them and their little games figured out.
I almost wanted to write him and tell him to ignore these ignorant corporate mouthpieces. Explaining Kerry is being targeted because he is speaking up and speaking the truth.

[whometense]

5. I agree with beachmom -

I think he knows exactly what is going on. One thing I give him full credit for - he allows them to speak, but he doesn't chuckle along with their snarkiness.

[sandnsea]

12. Matthews blasted the 'botched joke' garbage

From day one and every time he reported on the story. He's the one that said the faxes were flying from all the Republicans, it was a completely trumped up story. I do not understand why nobody will release these faxes so people will understand what's happening.

[MBS]

13. I've guessed that the Repub manipulation of the "botched joke"

was a kind of last straw for Chris Matthews. That was the first time I'd really seen him offer up an EXPLICIT opinion. As you said, it was clear from day 1 that it was a bogus, Repub-manufactured story (aided and abetted, alas, by gullible/meanspirited Dems, too)

[whometense]

15. That was my impression,

and I'm happy to hear it's true.

That said, it never pays to trust Matthews too far - but if he really has had his eyes opened, that would be a great step forward for truth and justice.

Maybe he's also got one eye on Olbermann's numbers????? Naw, that's way too cynical of me...

[ginnyinWI]

16. no, not cynical at all!

Ratings drive everything they do! Didn't he used to be the top dog at MSNBC, and now KO has passed him? Or at least equaled him. And the election will also tell him which way his audience is going. I would expect Joe Scarborough to have similar thoughts.