Which MSRNC "Pundit" Is the Worst in your Opinion?

[rndmprsn]

Poll question: Which MSRNC "Pundit" Is the Worst in your Opinion?

they're all about a tie IMHO, but i especially think Joe Scarborough to tbe the BIGGEST PHONY of them all...i can hardly stand his self-righteous blather any more...so who do you pick and why?

[MethuenProgressive]

1. You left off Keith Obamamann. Why?

[DefenseLawyer]

7. So you think Olbermann is worse than Pat Buchanan or Joe Scarborough?

Is that what it has come to? Seriously? I don't care how much you love Mrs. Clinton. Unless you are really a republican, that's just plain goofy.

[barb162]

20. I think Keith O. is a million times worse. He's lost all objectivity

the last few months. He shouldn't call his show "Countdown" anymore but rather what it is, the "Barack Obama Show." He's making Buchanan and that other guy look normal. He's just shillin' for Obama these days. Very sad.

[DefenseLawyer]

25. And to you Pat Buchanan is "objective"?

You hate Sen. Obama THAT much? So much that you now prefer Pat Buchanan? That's a shame.

[barb162]

41. Buchanan is not objective, but compared to KO, he's more objective.

That's how sad KO has become in his shilling. Don't bother me with that "hate" routine; I wouldn't waste my time or emotional energy. And who prefers Buchanan again? I prefer neither at this point. One is less objective than the other. And if KO ever decides to get his brains back in gear, I'll watch his show again.

[DefenseLawyer]

47. You have said enough

"Buchanan is more objective". No sense in discussing it further. I know exactly where you are coming from.

[barb162]

54. Yep, last time I saw Buchanan he could look at two sides of an issue.

Sadly, KO isn't even doing it anymore, that is, discussing multiples sides of issues.

Oh and I doubt if you know where I'm coming from and about my views about honesty and integrity in reporting. I don't ever remember discussing my views about the free press with you.

[Hutzpa]

49. I don't think he will miss you one bit,

well....I suppose the only thing that might get deprived would
be your brain from being educated.

[barb162]

56. I guess I'll take that as a compliment.

Whatever your views of a free press are and if carefully representing multiple sides of issues are important....
The free press is a very important part of our national heritage.

PS. I don't miss Keith Obamaman anymore either.

[newmajority]

26. Ummm.... who did Keith have on his show last night?

Some warmongering Republican senator from New York, wasn't it? ;)

And he was more than fair to her. Far more than I would have been, given her answers.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barb162]

61. Look, fella, KO has become a one-sided jerk shilling for one candidate

over all others. There happens to be TWO, get it, T.W.O. Democratic candidates running in this primary. For a broadcaster to be doing the one-sided shilling like Keith is doing is worse than disgusting. His objectivity is just blown. And don't even suggest the word disruptor again. This site is called "Democratic Underground" and not Obama Underground, and not Clinton Underground, last time I looked.

[Hutzpa]

69. Maybe its because of your candidate ways

Keith did not just started criticizing Hillary based on bias reporting,
it stem from her divisive politics and also about how she is prepared
to damage the Democratic party.

You have to understand that and not let blind loyalty distort your
thinking.

[barb162]

74. Both candidates have been doing negative campaigning

I think that is very clear.

Did you see Keith's show about the passports when he was insinuating it might be another candidate who was somehow responsible for Obama's passport file being compromised. He spent 45 minutes on it. You'd think it was the top story of the damned year. 13 People died in floods that day in the Midwest and all he was concerned about was Obama's passport file? DUH?? He was super outraged. The next day when Clinton's file was also found to be compromised, it got about 2 minutes time. Now will someone please explain to me and also to KO why Obama's file is somehow more important than Clinton's file? Where was his 45 minute outrage for Clinton's passport file being compromised?

Peace

[Hutzpa]

79. Listen

if I where you i'll start watching the Clinton News Network (CNN)
to save yourself any more aggravation.

Problem solve.....:shrug:

[barb162]

67. From DU rules

"Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates."
-----------------------
I want to mention this sentence specifically: Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

Both Obama and Clinton are DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES, so let's get with the program here.

[Hutzpa]

72. This has nothing to do with our candidates,

the argument is about YOU acknowledging Pat Buchanan over Keith Olberman,
someone that IMO we should all be grateful to for bringing to light many
issues regarding this administration and what is hurting all of us.....
well maybe not you.

So, you need to revisit again and as always read the rules carefully before
posting.

[barb162]

75. look at my post 74. My dog could do a more objective story than Keith

of the passport file story. Buchanan could have also. Actually, just about anyone and anything could have done a more objective report than KO. Hell,a tree could do better.

[barb162]

51. The DEMOCRATIC SENATOR was on and right after she was on the show, he ripped

into her with his sidekick. I guess he was too cowardly doing it to her face. And BTW, she's not a war mongerer. You might want to take a look at that war mongerer Republican Senator from IL, BHO, who keeps the Iraq war appropriations in gear all the while blabbing how he's soooooo against the war. The same guy who says his views on Iraq are similar to Booooosh.

[tridim]

57. Obama is now a "war mongerer"?

Wow, you lie with such ease.

[barb162]

58. Who talked about going in and bombing Pakistan? Obama, remember?

A few months back.

[tridim]

63. He has never said, "I will bomb Pakistan."

You're still lying. Why?

[barb162]

71. CNN: Obama terror vow angers Pakistan

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/03/obama.pakistan.ap/index.html

"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News on Friday. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

Also Friday, a senior Pakistani official condemned another presidential hopeful, Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, for saying the best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina.

Obama said in a speech Wednesday that as president he would order military action against terrorists in Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan if intelligence warranted it. The comment provoked anger in Pakistan, a key ally of the United States in its war on terror. "
----
Oh and please don't go around just making up quotes...making up quotes is lying, wouldn't you say? PS the Obama speech on bombing Pakistan is in this CNN article for HIS EXACT WORDS.

[tridim]

76. Why did you leave out the first sentence?

"Pakistan has criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country."

It's just slightly important to the context. Liar.

[Cassandra]

97. What makes him a Republican?

[Andy823]

34. So let me see now,

Pat and Joe are "normal" because they have been backing Clinton against Obama, but Keith, who has taken on Bush and all the dirty things in his administration, it worse because he has been telling the truth about Hillary! Yep, you make a lot of sense! NOT!!!!!!

[dchill]

98. "He's lost all objectivity"

No, you have.

[Texas Hill Country]

95. yes.

[tridim]

8. Probably because he's universally viewed as the best of the best.

Except in the eyes of fake Democrats.

[barb162]

22. He WAS the best of the best.

And if he ever decides to be objective again he will again be best of the best.

[Political Heretic]

30. He was never "objective"

He had/has a point of view, and his show has ALWAYS been about espousing that point of view.

Just so happens that right now you don't like that point of view.

[tridim]

31. He's the most objective person on television.

You just can't see because you're blinded by the Clinton machine.

In case you still don't get it, it is 100% objective to call out a candidate who campaigns on lies.

[Political Heretic]

33. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Objective? No... KO's show is a 30 minute Op-Ed. It's great! But that's what it is.

[tridim]

38. His reporting is genuinely objective.

His opinions aren't.

[Political Heretic]

52. If you mean that he does the best not to lie about facts, then yes. However-

There is no part of his show, not even his presentation of the facts that doesn't include his personal opinion. It's formatted as an op-ed. Which is great - I love his show. Opinions are never objective - nor could they or should they be. The represent a point of view, not the absence of one.

[tridim]

55. Objective != "fair and balanced" in the Faux Newz sense

Are you saying you can't be objective and opinionated at the same time? I completely disagree with that assertion.

[Political Heretic]

66. Objective literally means "without bias."

The trouble is, we all have bias. As Howard Zinn said in his preface to A People's History of the United States, if by objective we mean that we try our best to correctly tell the facts, then yes, we can be objective. But even in our selection of what facts to present we are subjective. In Keiths case, his who - as I keep saying - is formatted to be an Editorial show, not a "hard news" show. It's commentary. And commentary by definition is subjective. It's truthful in its fair and accurate portrayal of the facts. It is not "balanced" nor is it supposed to be.

[flpoljunkie]

14. Why? Because he is the best thing going at MSNBC, bar none! He unabashedly speaks truth to power.

[angie_love]

15. you fucking kidding me?

[Political Heretic]

36. I knew there was a reason I put whoever that was on ignore.

[yourout]

2. Gotta go with Russert as he was ass deep in the Plame business.

[PoliticalAmazon]

3. They had Joe S as commentary this morning on the PA Dem primary!...

...That's just about as bad as having Judy "TurkeyNeck" Woodruff as the commentator for the Democratic Convention when Clinton ran for his second term.

[rndmprsn]

6. these "hacks" are really destroying the corp media's credibility

if they ever even had it that is...

[Mabus]

4. I need an "other" category

that gives the option "which ever one is currently speaking".

[SeaLyons]

5. Why isn't Keith on your list?

[TheWraith]

23. Because he's the best commentator on TV, not one of the worst? nt

[SeaLyons]

27. No, sorry,

he is by FAR the biggest blowhard on the air. He is the WORST!!

[TheWraith]

32. No, he just doesn't suck up to your candidate, and you hate him for it.

Tough. The real world is knocking down your door.

[SeaLyons]

73. He sure sucks

up to your candidate. Anyway you look at it, very poor journalism.

[tokenlib]

9. Joe used to sound somewhat reasonable...

..and I used to enjoy his morning show. Now I find it cringeworthy...

[MadBadger]

19. I know! He was also a lot better on Scarborough Country.

[Political Tiger]

86. Agreed!

Now I have to hit the mute button when he speaks.

[Clintonista2]

10. Other: Keith "Worse than watergate" Olberman.

[TheWraith]

24. You're spelling his name the same way O'Reilly spells it.

Boy, isn't that appropriate.

[Clintonista2]

53. Jeez, you must follow O'reilly pretty close

How does he spell Mississippi?

[SoonerPride]

11. Scab-row.

Pat the racist pig is a close second.

The others are just doofuses (would that be doofii)

[cliffordu]

12. I can't vote for any ONE of these buttplugs.

I WANT TO VOTE FOR ALL OF THEM!!!!

[underpants]

13. Tucker because he is a legacy pundit

and there is nothing worse than a legacy pundit

Tucker
Cokie Roberts
JOnah Goldberg
William Kristol

[TexasObserver]

16. It's Morning RNC by a landslide!

Morning Joe my ass! Morning Propaganda straight from the RNC.

Every morning he's plying the GOP party themes. Today, instead of acknowledging that Hillary's candidacy is braindead and on life support, he tries to work the Florida and Michigan issues.

I used to watch him in his evening show, but since he's got his morning show, he's 100% loyal GOP foot soldier, spreading their party's manure early and often. I now watch his show about 15 minutes a day, which is usually all I can stand. He and Pat are the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum of morning moronic GOP shilling.

[newmajority]

17. Gotta go with Timmywhore and Tweety.

Yeah, Scarborough is a complete tool, and Buchanan is wrong on everything except PNAC foreign policy. But they are openly branded as right wing conservatives, because they were Republican politicians.

Timmie and Tweety get away with being categorized as neutral or even "liberal" by some, even though their politics are obviously every bit as vile as the other two mentioned.

And that makes them much worse, because people watch their shows - especially Meat the Press - without realizing they're getting the GE defense contractor warmonger spin on everything.

[Zachstar]

18. Where is KO this is a biased poll.

[GoldieAZ49]

21. Keith Obamamann is worse than all of them put together

why he is even on the air is a bad joke

[TheWraith]

28. Just because reality doesn't favor your candidate doesn't make a truth-teller biased.

And the fact that you hate Keith more than people like Buchanan is telling about how absurdly biased and out of touch your opinions are.

Now if you can't participate in a discussion based on facts, please return to HillaryClintonForum, or wherever you people come from.

[newmajority]

35. You guys really need to change the script.

Keith had your Goddess of Unending Imperial Wars for Oil and Whatever Likud Wants on his show last night, and let her spin her lies.

What more do you want?

[Skidmore]

37. Did you feel that way when he continually called out Bush for

his war crimes and crimes against the Constitution before this primary began? Or did you just always feel that way?

[truebrit71]

40. Yeah he is MUCH worse than the openly racist Pat Buchanan or the Dead Intern show host Scab-borough.

...:eyes:

[Political Heretic]

46. Do you realize how silly you sound saying something that hyperbolic?

Okay, I get it - you're pissed that Keith is hard on your candidate. Fair enough. It's his op-ed show, he's entitled to his opinion, but fair enough.

But to say that somehow he is worse than all of these right wing nutbags combined is just insane. I can't imagine myself taking someone I really admire - let's just say Noam Chomsky for example, even though he would never endorse anyone - and throwing him under a bus and saying he was the worst person ever if he chose to endorse Hillary, or if he was critical of Obama! That's just madness.

[Hutzpa]

29. Without a doubt, Joe Scarborough

and I see he is winning by a landslide closely

followed by Pat Buchanan........



:rofl:

[NorthCarolina]

39. Jeez...How to choose??

You needed an "all of the above" option. Came down to Scarborough, Russert and Carlson for me and in the end I had to pick that mealy mouthed condescending bow-tie f*^ker Tucker.....but I can't stand any of them really.

Oh, and to the poster that said where is KO's name....re-read the Subject line of the OP. The question was which pundit "Is the Worst", not "The Best".

[featherman]

42. Timmy is the most dangerous because he has a neutral reputation while

actively promoting the GOP by demeaning and diminishing all Democrats at every chance

[EFerrari]

62. And most likely the biggest audience, right? I voted for him. n/t

[Forkboy]

43. The Whiners For Hillary Club on this thread are fucking funny.

:rofl:

[kmsarvis]

45. David Gregory because......

he thinks he is smater than he is. I also get the feeling he thinks we are stupid.

Scarborough and Buchanan are to over the top to take seriously.

[Eurobabe]

48. Eww, tie between FatTimmeh and Joe "Beady Eyes" Scabro

[City Lights]

50. I went with JoeScar, but PatBuch comes in a close second.

Both make my skin crawl.

[knixphan]

59. Buchanan is a close racist second, but Joey takes the prick-award.

[Irishonly]

60. I Can't Vote

I can't decide between Tweety, Tucker, Timmy or Joe. Tweety is a sexist. Joe is a sexist and a spoiled brat. Timmy is a republican shill and Tucker is Tucker.

[wowimthere]

64. Some of you don't like what KO says about your candidate but it's true... she does act like a GOP

[wowimthere]

65. I believe Republicans have really corrupted this thread... lol

KO as bad as Pat and Joe. Give me a Break! Some of you are still in Bush fantasy land.

[liberaldem4ever]

68. Hard to choose

Between Pat and Joe, but I pick Joe because when Pat lies at least he occasionally giggles when he does it to let you know. Joe is just ugly and nasty all of the time.

[Bucky]

70. Matthews is way worse than Scarborough.

Joe Scarborough is the furthest from me politically, but he occasionally surprises me with his opinions. Sure, he's smug, but he interrupts guests far far less than Chris Matthews. Scar presents arguments on his show and he's a hell of lot easier to listen to compared to the grumbling tree sloth he replaced on the morning show.

Tweety, on the other hand, consistantly and persistantly dumbs down just about every argument he gets in. Even when I agree with his conclusions, I find his reasoning shallow, calculated for popularity points, and driven by emotion rather than reason. Scarborough surprises me because he thinks through his positions but has different values than me. Tweety is surprising because his opinions are just so fucking random.

More, tho, Tweety interferes in serious debate. When the Republicans were engaged in disgusting foreplay with Fred Thompson, all Tweets could talk about was the Old Spice Thompson smelled of--never mind experience, ideology, or track records for corruption and public service. I'm more likely to agree with Matthews, but he's never agreeable. He's anti-smart. In the end, that's bigger threat to democracy than TV spokesmodels with occasionally wrong opinions.

[Awsi Dooger]

82. Good call

Matthews is a scattergun who can treat the same subject matter completely differently from one minute to the next, purely on emotion.

Scarborough and Buchanon have excellent political instincts and I always enjoy listening to them. There's a difference in lapping up partisanship that matches your own, and gaining perspective from the other side, toward what Republicans prioritize and therefore how they may vote.

Others in this thread have nailed Russert, feigning balanced when his questioning is anything but that.

Olbermann has no business anchoring election coverage, like tonight. He's defined himself this cycle and the reputation has been diminished, far beyond what he believes, or others on DU seem to understand. You wouldn't have flurries of threads and posts condemning Olbermann every week if he managed any semblance of fair coverage.

I find Abrams and Gregory the most stable and journalistic.

[stillcool]

77. The sound of Pat Buchanan's voice...

sets me off. My husband watches Hardball and I am quite content in the other room, until that screech comes wafting through the walls. Like chalk on a blackboard.

[rndmprsn]

78. thank god for the ignore button...well it looks like good ole Joe is most despised here on DU

i love how he seems to think only HE, a corp elitist RWinger understands the working man...WHAT A BIG PHONY

[Catchawave]

80. Where's Andrea "I really don't need the work" Mitchell ?

She is worse thang on teevee. :scared:

I like Morning Joe :D

[rndmprsn]

81. shit forgot about mrs greenspan!

[Patsy Stone]

89. And she's pretty damned scary looking too!

I like Mika! :hi:

[Catchawave]

99. A recent photo of Mrs. Greenspan.....

Hi Pats :hi:

[Doctor_J]

83. Matthews is the only one who used to be a Dem and is now a whore

Russert wears his Bush campaign button with pride. Scarborough was an ultra-right-wing Congresslime. Buchanan worked for Nixon. Tucker is Tucker. Matthews is the only one who claims to be fair, so he's the biggest phony.

[LyndaG]

84. TweedleDUMB Matthews

He actually stated (with a smug, straight face) on Real Time last week that ordering orange juice in a diner was a sure sign of being an elitist. Hmmm ... making such a bone-ass pronouncement with all the problems we are facing is a sure sign Matthews is an out-of-touch, self-indulgent bag of wind.

[Political Tiger]

85. Joe Scarborough is a whiny baby

But Tucker Carlson is even worse IMO!

[Patsy Stone]

87. I chose Tucker

and I'll tell you why.

Joe has actually had experience in Congress, and can speak about a very few things with actual authority. Sure, he's a self-absorbed dick, but that fact alone doesn't make him the worst.

Tucker, however, talks out of his ass. He became a household name during the 2000 debacle, and has been riding that prep school, bow tie, Wingnut charm ever since, with nothing to back it up other than his narrow view of the world. He is truly undeserving of his stature as an opinion-maker.

[Kaylee]

88. I picked Scarborough....although the fact the MSNBC allows

an avowed racist (Buchanan) a legitimate platform drives me crazy.

[gmudem]

90. Dan Abrams doesn't belong on this list

Considering the work he's doing on Siegelman and his Teflon John segments about McCain, I don't see how you can compare him to these other idiots.

[PCIntern]

91. Joey BUT

there are so many close competitors...Tucker is really the slimiest, because he's a skank. And yes, I know what that means.

[DemVet]

92. Where in the hell is the Olbermann choice? He's absolutely the worst.

Even worse than Scarboy and Buchhead.

[gmudem]

93. You're a complete assclown if you really think that.

Your Hillbot love is blinding you. Olbermann is just about the guy in the MSM willing to tell the truth about the neo-con cabal. And you think he's terrible because he said a few mean things about Clinton? Get over yourself.

[brooklyndemo]

94. Scarborough once defended FOR FREE a man who killed an abortion doctor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Scarborough

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

96. David Gregory. Congressman Joe (R) we know, what he says is a given.

David Gregory, not so much so. He is the best at being phony.