What are Democrats saying, ON TV, about Colbert?

[Dr Fate]

Anything? Or are they too frightened to side with him?

I cant find anything-except some Hoyer guy who took Bush's side and was critical of free speech- What are the other DEMS saying- or are they joining the media in trying to ignore it?

Also- I have this other idea- next time a big issue comes up, maybe we should send all of our emails to comedians and TV actors instead of elected Democrats- they dont seem too frightened to talk about things that normal people are thinking about.

Thanks!

[Atman]

1. There are no real democrats on teevee, who are you kidding?

Donna Brazillion? PUH-leeze. Every now and then they allow Randi or Stephanie on, but just as token chick dems. There is no real democratic voice offered on mainstream television.

[Dr Fate]

2. Then how did Dean, Hillary, Reid, Kerry & Obama appear on my screen?

I must have been dreaming.

Oh well, we still have comedians and fat documentary directors.

For the sake of argument- what are they saying in mass emails or press releases then? Anything? Or too frightened?

[TayTay]

3. Kerry said the other night he watches the show

and he is reportedly in negotiations to appear on it in the next couple of weeks.

I guess he likes it if he's going to appear on it.

[Dr Fate]

5. Okay- I knew my man Kerry was with it. That is one- there are hundreds.

I'd still like to hear Kerry's specific opinion on what was said- especially Colbert's comments about the media.

All of us DUers are talking about how biased the media is on a daily basis- I've been wondering really hard why no elected Democrats ever talk about it to their faces...

[blm]

17. I doubt he saw it, Doc - his family's been in mourning and he curtailed

alot of his outside appearances last week and over the weekend. I think he got back to DC on Tues or Wed.

I expect he'll be playing catch up and watch it eventually.

[Iris]

41. why? what happened?

Sorry - I'm in an end of semester vortex.

[Dr Fate]

43. His former wife passed on. n/t

n/t

[Iris]

47. oh, yes. I did here that.

sad.

[blm]

49. Vanessa and Alexandra's mother. She and Kerry remained close.

So, I expect the whole family went through a tough time. Plus. Kerry's closest friend of over 40yrs is her brother.

[Terran1212]

53. Obama is the closest to a real Democrat on that list

Unfortunately

[Dr Fate]

58. Nah- I like Kerry & Dean a lot. They are true blue guys,but...

...they have room for improvement- but who doesnt?

I like some of what Hillary does too- she is lukewarm.

I list these particular DEMs because they are seen as "leaders" and those of us not in denial know they have media access.

[Terran1212]

59. The fact that they fit so well in a rightwing media is bothering

Except for Obama. I think Obama started off in an almost JFK-esque fashion.

[Dr Fate]

61. Nah- Dean usually kicks their tails, actually.

Seen it on TV with my own eyes.

Not to take away from Obama- who seems to garnmer a lot of respect from everyone.

I think they ALL could be just a leeeeeetle more agressive when it comes to the issue of media bias.

I want to see 'em pull a Colbert- in their own way of course- and without the jokes.

[Terran1212]

64. Subversive Democrats?

I just can't imagine that, but would love to.

[Dr Fate]

65. Nothing subversive about telling the truth. n/t

n/t

[Terran1212]

66. Unfortunately in America ....

Remember Orwell's quotation? "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

[Dr Fate]

67. Heh- perhaps you are right. n/t

n/t

[blm]

62. What kind of history book would lead you to that conclusion?

.

[Giant Robot]

4. Yeah what is

Alan Colmes saying about Colbert???

:hide:

[Dr Fate]

7. No- I meant Dean, Kerry & the other top DEMs I see on TV all the time.

Kerry was just on Donny Duetch the other night- so apparently they lifted the ban on his TV appearances that some DUers claim exists.

[Mabus]

9. Unfortunately Biden is the only Democrat that is "regularly" on TV

:cry:

[Dr Fate]

11. Hmmm- Kerry was on Donny Duecth 2 days ago- and Dean is on all the time

Obama gets a good amount of TV too- and who in the WORLD would turn down a Hillary interview? She was even at the FOX news dinner the other night, so I know she has their phone numbers.

You do know that all top Democrats have PR people who can call program directors and asked to be booked-right?

If Top Democrats are being banned from TV shows, I've never heard them say so. Have you?

[Mabus]

13. Where are you seeing Dean "all the time"?

and who is Donny Duecth?

Where did I say or even imply that Democrats are banned from TV shows? Where did you get that idea?

[Dr Fate]

14. It is a TV show on CNBC that Kerry was on.

And by all accounts, he was allowed to say anything and no one was cutting his mic.

http://www.bigideadonny.com/

Do you not see the weekly threads here at DU that chronicle Dean's various TV appearances? I do. He is on TV almost everyweek- and could be on even more.

And yes- many DUers make the claim that DEMs are being banned from TV shows- check this thread later and you will see.

I'm tired of people making the claim that we dont hear what we want from DEMS because they dont have media access- that is an excuse.

[Mabus]

16. Other DU'ers may make that claim but I didn't so don't make-up accusations

that aren't there. In otherwords, just because "A" said something on a thread yesterday (or three weeks ago) it is not okay to attribute their sentiments or opinions to me or anyone else. Hold the person who posted/said it accountable. Don't try taking me to task for something I didn't say. That's a very dangerous practice and it tells me a lot about you and where you are coming from.

Beyond that, I do see threads (and read many of them) that point to printed materials from and/or about Dean. I also receive many of missives in my in box from Dean and DFA since I was a Dean delegate to the National Convention. I just don't see Dean showing up on TV everyday. That was my question to you, where do you see Dean everyday? You've answered my question, to some extend, by saying that his is on TV almost every week.

[mitchtv]

18. But, But Doesn't Bob Schrum speak for us all?

Biden. obama i see from time to time, Kerry too, I see boxer /feinstein more than most, but I'm in Calif.

[Dr Fate]

20. If any of them are being denied equal time, then they can say so.

Until I see them SAY SO- I have no choice but to assume it aint so. All I have to go on is DU conspiracy theories- when are the "banned" DEMS fgoing to verify what we say every day?

If they really are being denied access, then it is time they showed some Colberts and said so.

[mitchtv]

23. I don't believe that

no tinfoil hat here. :tinfoilhat:
I think that they (the Nets) have their favorites. Dean is not one of them, Obama the mild is. Elected officials don't get invited to their "debates", operatives/ consultant/ pollsters/stategists do.
Controversy used to sell, It still could but the Bidens &Hoyers are pushing to get on tv

[Dr Fate]

24. I think he can have his PR people call them and get on whenever.

And if they are denying him equal time, then he can SAY SO. And that goes for anyother DEM who has allegedly tried to get on TV and was denied access- they need to grow some Colberts and SAY SO.

That is my position on this- I wont except guessing and theories on this anymore- if the media is really denying top DEMS access, then I need to hear DEMS SAY SO.

Until I hear them say so, I'll assume it aint so- that it is an excuse on DU.

[mitchtv]

25. you are right, but Biden is the only one

who recognizes the value. Dems ,IMHO flit from one crisis to the next, and spend too much time dodging incoming flak. Harry reid seems to understand and is head and shoulders above his predecessor

[ShortnFiery]

46. Oh and don't forget that stellar DINO Representative Hoyer!

[Dr Fate]

19. If he is being denied access, then he can show some Colberts and say so.

Until them, I'll assume he has all the access he wants, since I see him on TV nearly every week.

[Mabus]

26. LOL, if you want to respond to something I SAID, then we can talk

otherwise you've pretty much got your own agenda so have at it.

[Dr Fate]

27. I'll take that as an admission that you know I'm right. Thanks. n/t

n/t

[tatertop]

29. Cool, just ignore what posters are saying and spew at will

[Dr Fate]

32. Either top, household name DEMS have access or they dont.

If they have no access I never heard 'em say so.

If what Duers are saying is true about media access, then it looks like I'm not the one doing the ignoring!

[Mabus]

31. No not at all. Don't put words into my mouth.

BTW, Biden is on CNN right now.

AT least the person I said was "on" all the time is on again.

[Dr Fate]

33. My points stand. If they are being denied access, they are not saying so.

So either they ARE being denied access and they dont have the Colberts to lay it on the table and say so, or they are NOT being denied access.

One or the other.

[Mabus]

36. and your points had absolutely nothing to do with anything I said

You tried to impute what others said to me and I said no way. You want so badly to be right that you are totally ignoring what people are saying.

[Dr Fate]

37. Well I'm sorry! Please- let me step aside & hand the thread over to you!!!

But seriously- what is it that you said that you want me to adress?

My points are:

1. No Democrats are saying anything on TV about Colbert that I know of. Check.

2. No Democrats are saying anything on TV about media bias- at least not the level of bias and outright lies we note daily- or really at all. Check.

3. Some DUers (BUT NOT YOU-oh no!!!)seem to be suggesting that top, household name DEMS like Dean or Hillary are pushed aside by programmers for the likes of Biden. I'm saying that if that is true, they wont say so. I will not assume it is true UNTIL they say so. Check.

Now- what question of yours am I supposed to be answering?

[Mabus]

38. At least I'd be intellectually honest- here's what you claimed

Democrats were on TV all the time (see post #4, written by you). I asked where they were showing up all the time and you gave one example.

More specifically, (in my non-edited post #13) I asked "Where are you seeing Dean "all the time"?". I also asked who Donnie Duecth was (the one question you did answer). Finally I asked "Where did I say or even imply that Democrats are banned from TV shows? Where did you get that idea?" This last question is the one where you accused me of saying things that I didn't. This was also about the time I realized that you were only answering questions you thought you saw and were ignoring what people were saying.

[Dr Fate]

39. Dean & Kerry are indeed on TV all the time. That is a fact.

I never said "everyday"- although I'll assert that they COULD be on TV everyday- or at least as much as Biden or Lieberman is. If they cant, I've never heard them say so.

Dean shows up almost on a weekly basis. We see the threads and comment on them all the time. Kerry gets plenty of face time too- but perhaps we will agree they are not going on enough. I say it is their fault. What is your opinion as to why they are not on more than they are?

I'm not sure where the point of contention is.

If you were not suggesting that DEMS like Dean & Kerry have less access than others, then I apologize. I thought you were suggesting that through your arguments.

What WERE you suggesting?

[Mabus]

40. Finally you admit it - you *thought* I said something that I didn't

I was suggesting that the MSM usually bring on media whores like Biden. That was it in a nutshell.

[Dr Fate]

42. And you are right- they do bring on Biden. Did he mention Colbert...

or media bias?

If not, then my point still stands. If he did- then bravo to him and I'm wrong.

If other Democrats who you think would be better than Biden are being pushed aside by programmers, then they need to get some Colberts and SAY SO- and that is my point, whether you meant to suggest that or not.

I *thought* you were suggesting that the reason we dont see more of Dean, etc, is because programmers are pushing those guests aside for Biden- I apologize for reading that into your assertion.

Apparently you just making a straight observation with no OP context or underlying suggestion attached- my bad.

[Mabus]

44. Apology accepted - well, almost

I didn't respond to the OP. I responded elsewhere in the thread.

No, he didn't mention Colbert. Actually it would have been strange if he had since that wasn't the topic being discussed.

[Dr Fate]

45. That is the problem. DEMS always let the interviewer define the topic.

Of course no one is going to ASK them to discuss media bias. Do we have to be ASKED to tell the truth?

No one ASKED Colbert to do a harsh lampoon of media bias either- he was in front of a camera, so he DID IT. It's called COLBERTS (Balls)! ;)

You use your debating skills and steer the conversation. Like you and I are doing- It's not rocket science.

I submit to you that Biden's (and the rest of them) refusal to discuss media bias has nothing to do with the fact that is was not the topic. Unless the host was holding a gun to him under the table, he can bring up anything he wants.

If the media is telling Democrats NOT to bring up certain subjects, then DEMS need to SAY SO. If the media is cutting mikes or censoring sound-bites like some DUers accuse, then DEMS need to SAY SO.

All Biden needed to to was say "That reminds me of another hot news item- boy that Colbert sure was great huh?...etc, etc" Its not rocket science- and it would not have seemed strange at all.

[Mabus]

48. LOL

tatertop was right "Cool, just ignore what posters are saying and spew at will"

[Dr Fate]

50. You can start your own thread about how DEMS stand up to media bias.

Or about how they are praising free speech via Colbert.

It would be a pretty short thread.

I'm making my points and sticking to my topics, just like I want to- and I dont wait to be asked to do it like you suggested Biden does.

Sorry if you think I was ignoring you- I thought when you said "he didn't mention Colbert" you were talking about Biden-and you were making an excuse for Biden, so I was responding to that. Sorry for the apparent misunderstanding again.


Er- you were talking about Biden, right? What part of your post did I ignore? ;)

[Mabus]

51. There you go again, you *think* I said something that I didn't

Biden is a media whore AND he didn't mention Colbert. I'm not sure about you but when a poster calls someone "a media whore" I don't take that statement to mean that they are apologizing for them. In fact, I think "media whore" is a derogatory name for someone that I use when I don't like someone.

Boy, you sure misunderstand things a lot. Perhaps you should slow down and actually read what I post rather than make up things that you think I said only to have to apologize for it later.

[Dr Fate]

54. You said it would be strange if he mentioned Colbert.

I didnt think it, you said it.

And I took that as an excuse- which is exactly what it was. An excuse.

You suggest that he failed to mention it because he was not asked. You said it would be "strange" to mention it since it was not on topic. I disagreed that it would be "strange" to bring up a hot, current news item on a news show.

I commented on and disagreed with your specific assertion- then you claimed I ignored what you were saying. Oooo-kay.

[Mabus]

60. non-sequitors don't get guests invited back

and Biden, IMHO, loves being on television. He won't risk going off topic for fear of not being invited back or having the RW say he's crazy by not responding to whatever the host asks him. That is why it would be strange.

[Dr Fate]

63. Really? Who was not invited back after bringing up a current event?

And who says Top Democrats always wait to be invited- they have PR people dont they?

[Mabus]

68. and do you still beat your wife?

You want me to prove a negative?

There are several examples about people not being invited back after bringing up a current topic. Jeremy Glick, David Brock, Larry Johnson among them.

Former Fox News producer Clara Fenck tells us that she was once given a list of potential commentators, consisting of well-known and respected conservatives and mostly unheard of liberals. Additionally, we are presented with a study conducted by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) showing that during the last six months of 2003, 83 percent of the guests appearing on “Special Report with Brit Hume” were Republicans. Furthering the claim that Fox News is Unfair & Unbalanced, former C.I.A. officer Larry Johnson recounts his experience with the network. Under contract to them, Johnson said he was not invited back as a contributor after making the case that the United States could not effectively wage a war against Iraq and create a viable, sustainable situation in Afghanistan.

We’re also shown various internal memos handed down by Fox News Chief John Moody, which dictated not only what types of coverage would be allowed, but also the tone in which information was to be presented. While this certainly created unity, it did so at a cost to its journalistic accuracy. http://www.pajiba.com/outfoxed-rupert-murdochs-war-on-journalism.htm

While I can't say with certainty that a particular Democratic leader, elected official or candidate has been blacklisted from a specific television show I can extrapolate what happened in one television situation to another. Some guests aren't invited back because they don't say what the host(s) expect them to say. If they do that to guests and their own commentators than I think it is reasonable to assume that it happens to elected officials hosts or television executives don't like.

And yes, Democratic leaders have PR people and most of the time the PR person schedules appearances for them weeks in advance. Among a multitude of other reasons some these appearances are for fundraising purposes, sometimes it is to speak to their constituents (in groups and one-on-one) and sometimes a Dem is scheduled to talk about a book they have written. In fact, I just talked to someone early this morning (early for me at least) who told me that a Dem congressional candidate had contacted her to schedule a meeting with a local group. Two of the questions that the Dem candidate asked was: what topics should I focus on and what dates after June 5th was the group meeting.

Do you want their PR people to spend all their time trying to get their boss on TV or help set up meetings with people they actually represent?

[Dr Fate]

71. I never argued that web-pundits & minor officals have media access.

I'm sure Skinner or Mike Malloy would not have access either.

But that would not & does not happen to Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Dean etc.

And if it did, they have not said so. I've seen at least Hillary & Dean interupt and go off topic- I'll bet they will be back too.

If somthing that agregious is occuring to top, household name elected officals, then they need to say so. Really. Seems to me if the media really is doing this, they would have the Colberts to say so.


Why should the media invite back Larry Johnson, Brock, etc- few outside of blogs & DU has ever heard of them and the media could easily claim poor ratings as the excuse (see "Colbert was not funny- that is why we did not show it at 1st") The thread & OP is about top elected Democrats or Dean- not web pundits and mere officials- who we know its easier for media to ignore...

At least these relative no-names you list had the Colberts to SAY SO when they assume they are not being invited back.

No- Biden could have brought up current events- he has been on so much it would look odd if they all of a sudden dropped him. What happened to Brock, etc. does not excuse DEMs who DO have media access from ignoring important topics.

And whether I want PR people top get DEMS on TV is not the issue- the issue is whether they CAN get them on. They can.

My sincere thanks for at giving me some solid examples though- thanks a lot- really- no one has done that when I asked in almost 2 years- except one DUer said Rhandi Rhodes claims she was blacked out from TV shows- except she has been on Lou Dobbs since then...

In sum:

I maintain that top, "star" DEMs can, when they want to, go on TV and talk about whatever they want-including media bias. If they cant do this, then this is a serious issue- and they need to at least state for the record that it occurs. They dont. Which is my ultimate point.

[Mabus]

74. You can maintain your point all you want - doesn't mean you're right

and it doesn't mean you are completely wrong.

As for providing examples, you're welcome. I know the frustration of asking for them and either going without or doing the research myself.

Have a good evening. I've got to go take care of my puppy. All seventy pounds of her. She's recovering from surgery and, due to the anesthesia, she's still a little out of it.

[Dr Fate]

75. I hope she gets well- I have a 14 year old lab.

Good night. :)

[karynnj]

28. Her point is well taken

CNBC is not a big time network and speaking for myself I never heard of him before - but I liked the interview. He very very clearly liked Kerry. The interview ranged from him asking great broad questions - like on immigration giving Kerry the chance to give a very good thoughtful answer to some talk about 2004 to a question bizarrely asked about what TV he and Teresa watch.

[Dr Fate]

34. Not really. I've seen Kerry on all the networks, even FOX.

The Big Idea appearance was just the most recent example of proof that he has media access.

If he is being denied access on other shows, then he could have said so while he was on The Big Idea- then we would have somthing to go on besides conspiracy theories. He didnt.

[karynnj]

70. He has been on TV

He was on MTP after his NYT op-ed and was on This week on April 23 after his Faneuil Hall speech. He then was on NPR and Ed Shultz on April 24. He had more TV and radio appearances scheduled - but canceled them and flew back to Boston to be with his family. (His first wife, Alexandra's and Vanessa's mother passed away on Thursday. He just returned to DC on Tuesday.)

Like you, I do not think he has trouble getting on TV - one very good clue that he has no problem is that they often come to his office - which means they want him. (Seriously, who's better TV, Kerry or Biden?) They can get Biden whenever they want - Kerry is far more interesting.

[Dr Fate]

72. Exactly. And I'll bet they would not ban him if he went off topic...

...or said somthing controversial.

[karynnj]

76. He actually has pushed issues

I think that he knows if he starts where DU already is, he will be written off as a conspiracy nut and will not shift the discussion at all. If he pushes firmly but more gentlely, he can get people to think about what he is saying and shift their positions.

An example would be when he spoke on at least 5 shows after his October speech. Two issues he pushed were:
1) Americans should not be doing the Search and Destroy missions.

and

2) American soldiers should be in the rear in garrisons

Even Dr Rice has made an issue recently that Iraqis are doing more of the Search and destroy missions. No leader was speaking of this before Kerry spoke of it, using his own Vietnam experience to suggest almost more than explain the terror of the soldiers themselves going into houses where they had no idea what they would face. The parallel terror of the Iraqis having strangers who don't speak the language knocking on the door in the middle of the night is comprehendible to people listening. Even though the RW tried to twist this, there are many people who understand the issue now who didn't before. Likewise, even the Republicans are talking of a less forward position for our soldiers.

Both of these were Kerry recommendations to keep soldiers safer (and to inspire less Anti-Americanism) until we left. Although getting out is better, changing positions on these things which affected the soldiers was good and went beyond what anyone else was doing.

His current effort is more aggressive - because Iraq is worse. He knows that at this point controlling nothing in DC, the strongest asset he has is what he had in 1971 - his voice. (Even a Democratic take over of the House and Senate won't necessarily help - as can be seen by Biden's plan, which recommends staying till 2008, the Democrats themselves are split.)

Kerry has integrity and a strong eloquent voice to express his view. He is not a firebrand - and wasn't even as a young antiwar protestor. To expect him, as a 62 year old sitting Senator to be is crazy. In his strongest speeches his appeal is to reason, American values and a sense of morality. The rest of the time, he is simply an honest, logical, sane, rational person giving the best suggestions he can - which is not bad.

[tatertop]

6. FSTV had a segement on it. Amy Goodman had a great time with it

Too bad no one watches FSTV other than hard core Dems.
They are having one hell of a time raising enough money
just to stay on the air.

[Dr Fate]

8. Never heard of it. I mean on CNN, NBC and Fox...

...you know, "the channels." I see Top, elected Democrats on all of those channles all the time, so I know they are "allowed" on.

[emulatorloo]

10. Colbert was great, but don't "top dems" have better things to talk about?

should corporate media allow them on TV?

Colbert's performance was amazing. Jaw dropping amazing.

I am sure they will comment if asked. But I don't think they need to send out press releases on it. Kerry for example seems pretty preoccupied w getting out of Iraq and wants to talk about that. Dean seems to need to pin the "culture of corruption" meme (yuck I hate that word me-me) on the repugs, which is good. Kennedy wants to talk about all the good things that democrats have done in the past and will do in the future. So that is what I expect they will concentrate on if given thier snippets on time on CNN MSNBC etc.

[Dr Fate]

12. In other words, they are too frightened to discuss media bias.

Which is arguably the most important topic, since everything flows from it. THe public does not get the truth about the other issues you mentioned because of it.

Bringing up Colbert is the perfect way to get a foot in the door to discuss media bias.

DUers discuss it everyday- Air America discusses it everyday- why are elected Democrats too frightened to discuss it, to their faces?

[karynnj]

30. Kerry has repeated his comment

that the Democrats have a "smaller megaphone" . In addition to speaking at length on The Ed Shultz show, he mentioned it to Katie Coric in critiquing the SOTU speech. Who replied with a sarcasm drenched voice, "surely you don't blame the media for the Democrats not getting there message out", although ironicly the text on the screen under Kerry was "Do the Democrats have a plan?" Kerry held his ground pointing out the Democrats had 10? minutes to rebut Bush's speech, during which most channels had already switched to talking heads.

Colbert is a comedian - he doesn't need Democratic leaders to defend him. Genericly, Kerry's incredible Faneuil hall was in defense of everyone's right to dissent. This is where he should be - not defending jokes. Jokes by a comedian can and do go beyond what a leader should say. If Colbert is targeted in some way, then it would be reasonable to speak up.

[Dr Fate]

35. I saw all of that...."surely you don't blame the media..."

And what was his response to that question?

I saw it and I remember his response. You left out his response- what was it?

"Bigger megaphone"- so what? It's the "The president obviously gets more press" argument-Everyone knows that-conventional wisdom even- that is not the same accusations we make here at DU- and not specific at all.

Ed Schultz? I heard that interview too. So did 3,000 other Liberal Democrats in the choir. Now he needs to say it to Wolf Blitzers face- or Katie Couric.

I dont want Democrats to defend Colbert- I want them to use a "hot" news item as a springboard to express their opinions about media bias. As it is, most of them have joined the media in trying to ignore it.

[karynnj]

69. His response

was on the lines of:
"the Democrats had 10? minutes to rebut Bush's speech, during which most channels had already switched to talking heads." as an example that they were given very little time to refute the Republicans. (I don't have a transcript so - although he did say more I'm not sure what.)

[Dr Fate]

73. Yeah- but it was really a yes or no question.

She opened the door for the discussion- he got in one example-then allowed the debate to move on...Hardly the indictment we need, with all due respect.

Dont get me wrong- I'm supporting Kerry for '08- but I will critique him and the rest.

[karynnj]

77. True

I can see it that way. I think a "Yes, the media has been biased since at least 2000" would have been a harsher indictment on the media - but likely resulted in a further angry retort. Remember this was Katie's court - Kerry's factual response did point out the truth of his earlier response and by smoothly transitioning, he got the last word. Kerry won this - without getting into an obnvious fight with Katie, who was adored by many of the viewers. Maybe he planted a seed in some viewers minds that the liberals (Democrats) aren't getting as much coverage.

I do agree with you that none of the Democrats, including Kerry, have developed a perfect way to deal with a hostile press. In the Kerry group someone posted something from a new book that looks at the hostile coverage of both the Gore and Kerry campaigns. Even as a Kerry partisan I was shocked by this excerpt:

"In his new book, “Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over For Bush,” Eric Boehlert dissects the Beltway media’s culpability during the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign from the 2004 campaign and concludes the episode “likely delivered Bush the cushion he needed to win in November” and “represented an embarrassing new benchmark for campaign season reporting.” “Lapdogs” holds the press accountable for the central role it played in enabling a smear campaign that consumed the crucial campaign month of August 2004 — “a media monsoon that washed away Kerry’s momentum coming out of the Democratic convention.”

and

"By the time the Swift Boat story had played out, CNN, chasing after ratings leader Fox News, found time to mention the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth–hereafter, Swifties–in nearly 300 separate news segments, while more than one hundred New York Times articles and columns made mention of the Swifties. And during one overheated 12-day span in late August, the Washington Post mentioned the Swifties in page-one stories on Aug. 19, 20, 21 (two separate articles), 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. It was a media monsoon that washed away Kerry’s momentum coming out of the Democratic convention."

That by November the majority of people believed Kerry on his service record likely means he was better answering these charges than he is given credit for - and suggests how very complicit the media was. Remember, the official record that was there from day 1 backed Kerry and was contrary to the claims. (Compare to the Rather story and the difference is startling )

[Dr Fate]

78. All true- informative post- thanks. n/t

n/t

[Dr Fate]

15. Hoyer, the minority Whip had time to defend Bush and slam Colbert.

Surely if the minority whip has time to go out of his way to defend Bush and slam free speech, then other DEMs have time to express a mere opinion.

[mitchtv]

21. And risk starting something?

something they won't/can't finish? better lay low : see Clinton, Hillary Rodham.

[Mandate My Ass]

22. Yes, Diebold! But they don't talk about that either

Go figure.

[robbedvoter]

52. "Better" things? Colbert=W's incompetence, war, WMD, global warming

corruption, media bias. Shorthand for all of it: "Colbert hit the nail on the head"
Even "top democrats" can be media savy and communicate a lot without being boring or pompous.

[Dr Fate]

55. Hoyer took the time to slam Colbert & defend Bush- surely others have time

...to give a contrary opinion to a supposed leader in the House.

I think its a perfect springboard to discuss the much ignored topic of media bias.

[Joe Fields]

56. Maybe we can even write him in for president!

[Dr Fate]

57. Or at least a Colbert for Prez. T-Shirt! n/t

n/t