Yes! Keith is going to cover the fact that Obama did NOT

[senseandsensibility]

promise to abide by public financing. Everyone else on TV just accepts MCCain's charges as fact. On now.

[pdxmom]

1. From what I'm seeing, it looks like Keith is the only one out there actually

reporting the facts.

[Marie26]

2. Is Keith going to talk about the FISA bill

up for a vote tomorrow. If not, why not?

[oviedodem]

4. Yes he will I believe.

[Marie26]

7. Hope so! nt

[senseandsensibility]

11. He did!

Hope you saw it.

[polichick]

3. It's amazing how so many others simply repeat Republican lies!

[BeatleBoot]

5. KO: Objective Journalism at its Best!

:rofl:



But since the right has so many shills on their side, I can tolerate a shill on our side.

[JDPriestly]

6. Edwards accepted public financing, but Obama did not.

I remember that, because I was proud of Edwards for accepting it.

[kevinmc]

8. Let the GOP cry .... Obama is running a 50 state campaign and the GOP ..

has way more money that the DNC. The GOP can go to hell.

[Cha]

17. And let the m$$fm cry us a big

ol' River.

[hokies4ever]

9. Keith really nailed it

and McCain's camp dropped the ball. They should have signed up for public financing ahead of time and pressed this issue. Also, it was perfect timing to announce opting out of public financing. What's McCain going to do? Call Obama a flip-flopper in the middle of his offshore drilling flip-flop?

[flpoljunkie]

10. NYT: In fact Obama stopped short of making a flat promise to participate in public financing system

In fact, Mr. Obama stopped short of making a flat promise to participate in the public financing system. Asked in a questionnaire whether he would take part if his opponents did the same, Mr. Obama wrote yes. But he added, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

Mr. Obama has since said that he would only agree to such a deal if Mr. McCain agreed to curtail spending by the Republican Party and independent groups.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obamacnd.html?hp

[Name removed]

12. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dawgs]

15. Buyers remorse? There certainly wasn't anyone better.

No?

[powergirl]

13. Finally - why does the msm keep skating over

this one. They are stirring up crap for the sake of stirring up crap.

[JoFerret]

14. I don't care what Keith says or does.

I am glad he is not a republican promoter (that could happen as he has no credible political compass) but he has zero credibility as a TV presenter and never has had any as a political journalist.

[Windy]

16. The primary is over JoFerret! Keith is a bright light in the rethug darkness

He only spoke the truth with regard to the Clinton campaign. I know that your opinion of him declined because he was not a ra ra hillary supporter and called her bluff on her IWR vote that she never regreted and her terrible lack of judgment on Kyl/Lieberman.

Its time to move on now. We have our nominee.

[JoFerret]

21. You misunderestimate me

This has to do with journalism not partisan positions.
Ranters are ranters. And they should leave it to Colbert who does it best. As journalists they have no credibility. KO has no credibility.
I do not agree with you statement re :truth". But that is irrelevant. You are the one who needs to move on. The concept of TV as a gladiatorial contest between partisan "champions" is one that I think all of us should oppose a strongly as we can. The fact that KO is outnumbered by the "champions" of the right does not make him an exemplar of journalism but merely a (narrow) partisan. That is not a voice of reason (even when he is right).

[TheDonkey]

18. He is by far the best TV Newsman in America and his soaring ratings prove it

GO KEITH GO!

[JoFerret]

23. If soarng ratings prove anything then

American Idol beats them all.

What a silly notion.

No wonder we are all so ignorant.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

28. Waddya mean, WE?

Your ignorance speaks for itself. Leave the rest of us out of it.

[LSK]

19. that is really sad

"I dont want anyone out there in the Media giving our side of the story because my candidate lost. FISA bill, oil speculation, Iraq war be damned."

[JoFerret]

26. I am sorry your candidate lost

but I do think upholding a measure of journalistic 'standards' matters.

I would rather work for higher levels of news presentation and commentary than the cable ranters.
(Colbert excepted.)

[LSK]

27. i was paraphrasing you

My candidate did lose, John Edwards. I moved on many months ago. Billo, Rush, Hannity are the enemies, not Keith.

[JoFerret]

33. Ranting on TV is not useful

and is not journalism. The other idiots you mention are extreme examples of the partisan frothing breed.

This is about news commentary (or what passes for it). Not candidates.

[FrenchieCat]

20. There are only two sides to choose from;

the media liars that gave us George Bush and the Iraq war, or Keith Olbermann who tell the truth.

It appears that you've decided that you are on the sides of the liars.

Good luck with that!

[JoFerret]

24. Simplistic thinking

of the worst sort.

[FrenchieCat]

25. I think your post was what as "simple".

That Keith Olbermann has no "Credibility" because he didn't support your candidate during the primaries.

Most might say, grow the fuck up.

[JoFerret]

34. And if they did

"most' would show themselves as crude, foul mouthed and offensive.

Fortunately my views will not be subject to a public referendum and there may still be room for less popular and minority opinions on what counts as journalism and political commentary.(This is about journalism - or what passes for it - not the positions of the candidates.)

I still like to imagine that political discourse can be conducted without frothing and with a tone of civility. Even on TV.

There are commentators who manage to do that but they are few and far between. The world is not quite so fundamentalist as you suggest even though there is a stark difference between Bush-Cheney-McCain and Obama - (most) democrats.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

29. Thank you for that excellent example...

nt

[JoFerret]

35. You are very welcome

I think that there has to be a wider range of political commentary that rw frothers and ranters and pro democratic candidate frothers and ranters.

Partisan can be good if thoughtful and rational. It's the frothing and ranting part that is the problem.

Most TV is a total wasteland when it comes to intelligent discourse. There are a few exceptions - not many.

[slinkerwink]

22. thank you, Keith!

[Evergreen Emerald]

30. I thought he did pledge to use public funding--not that it matters

I honestly think all he as to say is that he changed his mind as the situation changed. I cannot believe anyone would be-grudge him the ability to raise big bucks.



http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obama-prepares.html
-----
* UPDATE: The pledge I am referring to came last September in Obama's answers to a questionnaire by the Midwest Democracy Network.
The question was: "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?"

Obama checked: "Yes" and wrote:
"In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

[Windy]

31. Once again Evergreen, thank you for your concern...

:sarcasm:

spread some concern in other places please.

Barack made the right decision. He sais he would opt out if he could get an agreement from his repub opponent if he was the nominee.

Right wing 527s are loaded with cash and will be gunning with both barrels.

If he's going to be able to combat them, he had to continue to draw in funds from his donor base, who are those of us who have contributed average donations of 100.00.

and there are over a million of us!

We have a quality nominee. I know you don't agree.

[Evergreen Emerald]

32. Wait a minute

Who the hell do you think you are? How DARE you suggest that facts are not appropriate on DU. How DARE you suggest that unless I ignore truth, I am less of a democrat than you.

You need to get on board the Obama unity train.

To change his mind is one thing...for YOU to pretend he did not change is mind is another.

And FYI: he changed his mind. But, he KNEW when he made the pledge that 527s were out there. It was after the Kerry/Bush general election.

Feingold is a true American and a democrat. For you to suggest otherwise, because he is not in lockstep with Obama is--undemocratic.

[JoFerret]

36. You are right to be annoyed

And Obama is probably right to change his mind under the circumstances. Makes sense given the nature of the task he has undertaken and the ability to raise the necessary cash to do it.

McCain I think long ago abandoned his finance campaign reform hat.

Too bad all our elections are mired in the financing pig trough.