Exclusive: After Obama Complaints, CNN Bans James Carville And Paul Begala From Appearing As Analyst

[robcon]

Source: TPM

"I've just learned that CNN has told top Dem strategists James Carville, Paul Begala, and Robert Zimmerman -- who are CNN mainstays but are all Hillary supporters -- that they will not be doing any more political analysis on the network until the Democratic primary has reached a conclusion....

...Carville and Begala's presence on CNN has led to criticism for the network in the past. A few months ago the liberal blogosphere roundly condemned CNN for presenting them as neutral observers without identifying them clearly and frequently as Hillary supporters. In response to the criticism, CNN started identifying them as Hillary backers.

It appears that the Obama campaign may have kept up its criticism of their appearances, however. Asked about the Obama camp's protest, Feist said: "We get advice from all the major campaigns about who should or should not be on CNN. If we listened to all of their advice, then there would be very few commentators left to put on television."

Interestingly, not everyone at CNN appears to agree with this decision. "People inside CNN are surprised," one person involved with CNN programming told me. "No other network buckled to this political pressure. CNN has removed from its lineup top analysts who know about the national political scene." Not an argument that will find much sympathy in the lib blogosphere, perhaps, but worth noting. "

Read more: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/01/cnn_says_no_mor.php

[ccpup]

1. how Presidential of him

Uh-bama! Uh-bama! Uh-bama!

[BOSSHOG]

2. Whats the point in having "analysts?"

[Uncle Joe]

10. They can't be anal without them. n/t

[godai]

21. Maybe they should ADD Bill Clinton. Good choice? n/t

[Parche]

32. Hey Boss

If they get rid of them, they should also get rid of that blowhard, Bill Bennett, and
Ralph Reed, both pieces of crap, that I despise....:grr: :grr:


:hi:

[sallyseven]

41. How about Russet, Matthews, Gregory,

You know before Matthews jumped all over Obama to get nasty he was a very credible and responsible campaign. Since then I have been concerned that he will go down in flames just as the Main Stream Media wants him too. They want the Dem's destroyed. Their masters have told them too.

[McCamy Taylor]

42. Under Pat Buchanan, the MSNBC guys are aiding Obama and trashing HIllary.

See my post below.

[yurbud]

33. on TV, they are more like analcysts (apologies to Rush Limbaugh)

[bemildred]

3. Good. nt

[Strawman]

4. No matter who is on, I learn absolutely nothing from these shows

on CNN and MSNBC with the exception of Keith Olberman who actually is somewhat more issue oriented.

[EFerrari]

40. Exactly. I can learn more from DU in a few minutes than from

watching one of those shows all night.

[Supersedeas]

53. same here strawman -- it is a waste of public airways/bandwidth

[northzax]

5. any poltical analyst

who isn't supporting someone at this point is useless. So let's ban them all. I assume that the campaign is also pressuring abc to stop showing Oprah, since she is a well known partisan in this election as well? Of maybe she should just be banned from talking about anything relevant to the campaign? No?

[MADem]

6. Anybody watching Carville and Begala and being "confused" about where their loyalties

lie is a fucking idiot. How stupid and clueless do you have to be?

Obama would have been better off asking CNN to add a few analysts that support him, rather than whining that two of the most experienced campaign managers in the entire world be "banned."

[displacedtexan]

11. I thought Donna Brazile did a good job supporting Obama.

Of course, I (being a Clinton supporter) was at first
taken aback by her remarks against Bill Clinton's campaign
"fairytale" talk, but I thought she was fair... and calm.

She made her case, and her argument was sound. And I think
she influenced the truce between the two campaigns.

Just because a Dem strategist is supporting a certain candidate
doesn't mean his/her opinion of the process is bad "cable news" form.

When cable news networks apply the same rules to Repukes, I'll cheer.

Added: I hope this made sense.

[MADem]

14. It makes total sense...!

It's a good thing I don't 'rely' on CNN for my election analysis, I reckon! Talk about using a "blunt instrument" to solve a problem. I guess the idea of putting a little 'crawl' under the analyst showing their CV, who they worked for, and who they support is just something they never though about!!

[ccpup]

17. it makes perfect sense

it's just too bad Barack's crybaby tactics are now working to censor who can offer feedback based on years of political experience and who can't. I wonder if the Clinton Campaign will respond with, well, you can't have these people on because they support Barack?

And before you know it, we'll have Wolf Blitzer giving rambling monologues to four blow-up dolls sitting around a table. Well, at least they'll be non-partisan and no one can complain. :eyes:

[daleo]

29. It sounds like the McLaughlin Group

"rambling monologues to four blow-up dolls sitting around a table..."

[Kittycat]

16. But then John would need a few

and how realistic to have 9 analysts that should just be supporting the democratic party process, in general. Not just their preferred candidate.

[MADem]

23. They don't all have to appear at the same time...alternatively, take one

from each camp, let them rip the issues to shit on the D side, do the same thing on the R side, and then have a couple of them go head to head in rotation.

[Zueda]

7. MAybe cause Carville is playing an active role in the Clinton campaign.

:shrug:

[sallyseven]

43. No he is not. She is not stupid.

[Clintonite]

8. CNN has turned into a fucking joke people!

The baby Obama cries again. Surprise, surprise.

[rodeodance]

9. Being critical of Obama earns many a racist label by many-certainly not all. Perhaps they are

glad they no longer have to be in that position??



Look at what happened Bill Clinton. Its dangerous out there.

[thereismore]

12. I like that. But, does anybody actually understand what Carville says? nt

[Debi]

13. No different than MSNBC not using Joe Trippi anymore

why should campaign advisors be used at 'analysts'? There are plenty of talking heads out there, as soon as a person is notably clearly supporting one candidate over all others their credibility is nil anyway.

[Reciprocity]

18. I though that Trippi was working for Edwards? n/t

[Debi]

24. He is and anyone who thinks that Begala and Cavrille aren't or won't be

working for Clinton are kidding themselves.

[sallyseven]

44. Joe Trippi is running Edward's campaign. DUH

[Debi]

59. And anyone who thinks Begala and Carville don't play crucial roles

in the Clinton campaign are fools. Just because they are not on the payroll doesn't mean they aren't 'with' the campaign.

DUH yourself :eyes:

[Reciprocity]

15. Meanwhile........

Donna Brazile and Rowland Martin can still shill for Obama wile Jack Cafferty, Carl Bernstein, Bill Bennett and I can't remember that women's name it sounds like Borsia, can rant and rave about how evil the Clintons are uncontested.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

31. Are any of those you mention...

actively working on or advising the campaigns of any of the candidates? That is what we are talking about here -- a pundit who is a participent of a candidate's campaign being presented by a network as an objective analyst.

They should be able to speak as a clearly labeled partisan, but not as an objective analyst.

[Reciprocity]

36. Both have denied working for Clinton. If you have a link that says otherwise I would love to see it.

[Kolesar]

38. Put up a link of Begala &Ca-ca-carville's "denial", please

Note that both of them worked for President Clinton.

[Reciprocity]

48. Now show me yours.

Fox News: We Report -- Even if We Know It's False
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/fox-news-we-report-e_b_80698.html
Posted January 9, 2008 | 12:35 PM (EST)

Snip
Several times that day Fox News reported that I was joining Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign. It was a big story - at least until the stunning election returns. The only problem was, it wasn't true. Fox News never even tried to contact me to verify their story, and when I contacted Fox, I felt like a character in a Kafka novel -- or at least Curb Your Enthusiasm.

[Kolesar]

52. Good, thanks, but

I think you want to direct your question to Hell Hath No Fury. :hi:

[Reciprocity]

58. Sorry my mistake. If this is the new criteria why is Stephanopoulos still on air.

[McCamy Taylor]

46. The media whores who scheme like Tweety and Buchanan w/o admitting it are MUCH worse than the ones

whom everyone knows are working with a specific candidate. Both Tweety and Buchanan and a bunch of the people they come into contact with at MSNBC (like Lawrence O'Donnell and Tucker) have been trying to peddle with the Democratic primary, selling this stupid "The Clintons are ghetto-izing Obama" Big Lie that Pat Buchanan, The Lord of Lies came up with. This lie does two things. It interjects race into the campaign (what else do we expect from Mr. Souther Strategy?). And it demonizes Hillary, which is also what we expect from a man who thinks that any strong, political woman must be a witch.

IMO, what Buchanan has got the guys doing at MSNBC and in his political rag is e-v-i-l. If Obama was smart, he would complain about him.

[FreepFryer]

19. Face it, CNN is the 'big money' news channel - everything they want you to think. FUCK CNN. (n/t)

[PassingFair]

20. CNN is absolutely doing the right thing.

Carville and Begala ARE the Clinton campaign.

Jeez.

[Alexander]

22. Of course the Shillbots are whining that they don't get free time on CNN any more.

They should go for a spin in one of these:

[aquart]

49. "Shillbots."

You can't oppose people without demeaning and dehumanizing them? That's a tactic of soldiers out to kill, or rabid fanatics...also out to kill.

[notadmblnd]

25. If we listened to all of their advice, then there would be very few commentators left to put on tele

And that would be a bad thing? Why can't MSM do it's job? How about just verifying and reporting facts?

[loudsue]

37. "verifying and reporting facts"!!!! THANK YOU!! YES!

What a novel idea!! :think: Maybe doing what the fourth estate was MEANT to do!!?? Who would have ever thought of that in this day & age of governance by the corporation.

:kick:

[kstewart33]

26. From this Hillary supporter...

That's a good move by CNN. Now if only their reporters were as fair-minded...

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. Well done. We no longer allow financial analysts to push stocks if they

own stocks in the company, why don't we do the same with pundits when they have a clear preference for one of the candidates?

[Uncle Joe]

28. The only question I have is why didn't they do this a year ago

when we had eight candidates running? They shouldn't require a candidate to complain, in order for a major news network to remove analysts with such an obvious conflict of interest. Now here we are within a couple of weeks of Super Tuesday, after a year of one sided brain washing from their "neutral analysts" and CNN decides to finally put a fig leaf on.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

30. I was floored when I saw them...

being used on CNN as "political analysts". The first few times I saw them, it was very clear they -- especially Carville -- were "analyzing" in a partisan manner. I felt that CNN had no business presenting people so integral to the campaigns of both Bill AND Hillary Cinton as objective pundits. If they were to appear on CNN as clearly indentified partisans for Hillary, only speaking from a partisan's point of view and not as a general political analyst, that I could go for.

I say all of the is as someone who does not support the two parties involved.

[WyLoochka]

34. Good! and Billy Boy

should put Carville on ignore too. His advice to Bill to go out there and play as dirty as possible is ripping a large segment of potential support right out from under the woman, if she does happen to eventually get elected.

If that happens the hounds will start baying again. This time, unlike the last go round, I will not have one word to say in support of the Clintons.

During the course of three weeks I have been changed, by their own actions and words, from a fairly enthusiastic potential supporter to a thoroughly disgusted won't lift a finger to help them position.

[mzmolly]

35. It's about time. Those two are too heavilly involved in "king making" to be objective

and they have been for years.

[McCamy Taylor]

39. Does this mean Hillary can force MSNBC to sack O'Donnell, Tweety and Buchanan?

Since all three of them have openly denounced Hillary and Bill and Edwards and/or come out in support of Obama? Just asking?

Oh, and Edwards can force O'Reilly off the air now, right! Yeah!

:applause:

Obama is acting more and more like a whiny b-word. And I do not mean the one they call Hillary.

Here is a pertinent quote from John Milton from his

AREOPAGITICA;
A
SPEECH
OF
Mr. JOHN MILTON
For the Liberty of UNLICENC'D PRINTING,
To the PARLAMENT of ENGLAND.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/areopagitica/index.shtml

Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making. Under these fantastic terrors of sect and schism, we wrong the earnest and zealous thirst after knowledge and understanding which God hath stirr'd up in this city. What some lament of, we rather should rejoyce at, should rather praise this pious forwardnes among men, to reassume the ill deputed care of their Religion into their own hands again. A little generous prudence, a little forbearance of one another, and som grain of charity might win all these diligences to joyn, and unite into one generall and brotherly search after Truth; could we but forgoe this Prelaticall tradition of crowding free consciences and Christian liberties into canons and precepts of men. …Yet these are the men cry'd out against for schismaticks and sectaries; as if, while the Temple of the Lord was building, some cutting, some squaring the marble, others hewing the cedars, there should be a sort of irrationall men who could not consider there must be many schisms and many dissections made in the quarry and in the timber, ere the house of God can be built. And when every stone is laid artfully together, it cannot be united into a continuity, it can but be contiguous in this world; neither can every peece of the building be of one form; nay rather the perfection consists in this, that out of many moderat varieties and brotherly dissimilitudes that are not vastly disproportionall arises the goodly and the gracefull symmetry that commends the whole pile and structure. Let us therefore be more considerat builders, more wise in spirituall architecture, when great reformation is expected. For now the time seems come, wherein Moses the great Prophet may sit in heav'n rejoycing to see that memorable and glorious wish of his fulfill'd, when not only our sev'nty Elders, but all the Lords people are become Prophets. No marvell then though some men, and some good men too perhaps, but young in goodnesse, as Joshua then was, envy them. They fret, and out of their own weaknes are in agony, lest these divisions and subdivisions will undoe us. The adversarie again applauds, and waits the hour, when they have brancht themselves out, saith he, small anough into parties and partitions, then will be our time. Fool! he sees not the firm root, out of which we all grow, though into branches: nor will be ware untill he see our small divided maniples cutting through at every angle of his ill united and unweildy brigade.

But hey, if censorship floats Obama's boat, I guess that is the kind of unity he is after.

[JerseygirlCT]

45. Good!

It was getting out of control - no view but the Clinton view expressed. And that was supposed to stand in for all Democrats.

We're not there yet.

[AX10]

47. Obama cries and gets his way.

Just like Bush in 2000.

[LulaMay]

50. Nothing surprises me anymore. All the male owned media hates Senator Clinton. Isn't that obvious?

To everybody by now?

It is shocking and frightening though.

Since when are all analysts or pundits neutral?

Are they going to put everyone they have on through this absurd "vetting" process? What about pundits who support Obama, or Kerry? There are plenty of them.

Something tells me no.

[pleah]

51. Obama has turned into the biggest whinny baby I have ever seen.

[LulaMay]

54. This is CENSORSHIP. Everyone should be uncomfortable and complain to CNN.

When a network states they are banning commentators that have supported one particular candidate, banned them based on their political opinions or past/present affiliations, even when so stated, they are pushing their own agenda.

I am sick to my stomach.

Talk about Big Brother.

[Lilith Velkor]

55. Too bad

the ban isn't permanent.

I don't even like Obama, but those two assholes have always been useless.

[robbedvoter]

56. Because 99.99% favorable coverage just wasn't enough!

Don't watch CNN, don't care for those two, but consider this: Rush Limbaugh is pimping Obama! As for the rest of the media - they never tried harder to manipulate OUR primary:



Obama: 47% positive, 16% negative.
Clinton: 27% positive, 38% negative.
McCain: 12% positive, 48% negative
Giuliani: 28% positive, 37% negative
JEDNE

Net numbers

Obama +31
Giuliani -9
Clinton -11
McCain -36

[Blackhatjack]

57. CNN is a shell of its former self... In many ways they have tried to copy Faux Noise...

Faux Noise - "fair and balanced"

CNN - "best political team on television"

Donna Brazile and Bill Bennett need to go too.

Wolf Blitzer is an empty suit.

And they ran off real news journalists for posers.

Turn it all over to Jack Cafferty and be done with it!