Click the title and see CNN's John Roberts blush at Madeline Albright. Thank you, Marty at Chickaboomer!!!
I'm sorry, but I can't think of anything Albright could do that would make me blush, or react at all, for that matter. I'm sorry, but, well, she's not all that.
I'll be nice and leave it at that.
Ugh!
Showing posts with label CNN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CNN. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Friday, September 04, 2009
Rob on education, politics, and the whole Obama speech thingy.......
Lots of comments regarding my Facebook and Blogger postings of a couple of days back regarding my deep concern over the plans to show all students a speech by the President this Tuesday. I even saw a comment that led me to believe some may believe me to be a racist over all this. Can I first say that I could care less if our President is purple, green, or blue? I look at substance.
And thus the reason for this post. For those of you who think this is a knee-jerk reaction on my part, I present to you a history lesson.
----From the moment I stepped foot into Longdale Elementary School in August, 1997 to meet my son's Kindergarten teacher, I have been very, very involved in my childrens' education. I've been proud to be a Co-Class Mom, a Class Mom, then eventually a Vice-President and two-time President of the school's PTA and one-term President as the school's PTO. I loved every minute I spent at school with my kids, their friends, their teachers and the rest of the staff. My FAVORITE part would be when kids would see me in the hallway and greet me with either "Hi Robbie's Dad!" or "Hi Rachel's Dad!". That was THE BEST. :)
Let me take you back several years to my two years as PTA President at Longdale. Upon doing much studying and observing of the PTA on a local, state, and national level, I became extremely uncomfortable with the tenets of that organization. Though some of the "reasons" given for their hearty lobbying efforts "on behalf of education" seemed innocuous enough, further review revealed a definite bias toward one political ideology over another.
Whenever you begin to involve yourself in politics, you immediately, as an Association, should go under the microscope to be scrutinized as to what said group does with their dues, donations, etc. And, too many times, PTA monies, mostly on the National level, were being used in ways where it was abundantly clear who the PTA was comfortable associating with politically, and who did clearly did not care for.
This led me to study the then-growing movement of schools nationwide leaving the PTA in favor of PTO's, which are "Parent-Teacher Organizations", and concentrate their efforts on the local school. Period. If they choose to partner with other schools in their district, or county, or across the country, they could, but they were not forced to do so, as is done via the National PTA with mandatory dues.
Each year, Longdale families were giving more than $1,000 to the National and State PTA and essentially getting nothing in return except the "privilege" of calling themselves a PTA. Want "leadership training"? That's more $$ and a trip out of town for a weekend. I always wondered why a non-profit group would pay good money to send willing "leaders" to a "leadership conference". Isn't that something that could be done on the local or area level for free, thanks to the expertise of all the volunteers in said local or area group?
Somehow, I never thought their members magazine was worth the $1,000 plus dollars.
Well, the year I was NOT part of the PTA Executive Board, the wheels were put in motion to leave the PTA and re-form our parent group as a PTO.
What did the PTA do?
Per bylaws, we had a meeting where they sent a representative to speak to the membership to implore them not to leave, which was perfectly fine. Per bylaws, if we voted to leave, any monies that were raised as a PTA would go......to the State and National PTA.
And not to the children.
You would think the PTA people would want the money to go to help the children of the school, but I digress......
Long story short, we left the PTA for the non-political PTO, which is, by the way, NOT an "National" organization. There is no such thing as a "National PTO". Any dues you collect as a PTO stay at the school. Heck, you don't even have to CHARGE for membership, if you don't want to!
THE PTA RESPONSE:
1) They always paint PTO's and other type groups that are not associated with them "fundraising groups for schools". This is their "slime tactic" against anyone not aligned with them. Remember, for each school that there is no PTA, that's hundreds of kids and thousands of adults that do not receive their money (dues), hear their politically slanted message and less numbers they can add to their "total membership" tout of clout at State Capitals and on Capitol Hill.
Truth be told, even though the PTA's say they have a "3 to 1 ratio rule" of projects to fundraisers, you don't get flyers and handouts the first week of school about the latest PTA projects. You get hit with a huge fundraiser. PTO's can do as many projects as they want and as many or few fundraisers as necessary, all based on what's best for the school and THE KIDS. Gee, what a novel concept.
2) We were the first school in Henrico County to leave the PTA. The rest of the PTA's then, in essence, shunned us. How hard would it be for a County body to change their name from "County Council of PTAs" to "County Council of PTAs and PTOs"? That didn't happen. Nor were we included at the beginning in any activities. Our school's voice was silenced....by them, not us.
3) In 2004, when Longdale families constituted a majority of new parents and students at the then-new Greenwood Elementary School, we simply asked the new principal that, since groups from three different schools were coming together to start the new school, that both the PTA and PTO option be presented to the parents and let them decide how to organize the group at Greenwood.
The PTAers hated that idea. We had a meeting, though. The PTA representative attempted to grandstand and take the entire alloted hour of speaking, knowing the hall was being used by another group later and that we'd have to vacate. My wife had to go find the principal, who had left the room, to come back in and basically shut him up.
The parents voted to form a PTO. At the first meeting of parents interested in wanting to form it, a group of PTA supporters came and effectively staged a coup d'etat. How did they eventually win?
A formation committee packed with Pro-PTA'ers botched up (on purpose, I suspect?) the formation process to the point where they then later came back and convinced enough people that the ONLY way to get the group going was to form as a PTA so the PTA could help them.
For example, they said it would cost thousands to lawyers to form the PTO. Lie. We did it at Longdale for free.
It went on and on and on. For months.
Almost AN ENTIRE SCHOOL YEAR went by, and these people were perfectly content to waste all this time where THE STUDENTS could be benefiting, simply to get their way.
--------------------------
When people are motivated by politics, it's amazing how many of them make decisions and do things which actually go against what they claim their core beliefs are. For example, if you are "only looking out for the children", why spend so much money that could be used in the classroom strengthening an association whose existence has already been proven to be not necessary?
Did you know around 3 out of every 4 "parent-teacher" groups in America are NOT PTA's?
No wonder they're going nuts! Where will they get the money to "promote their cause"? Dry up the dues and you're in trouble.
-------------------------
Why did I and do I support PTOs? One big reason is that they are NON-POLITICAL.
Public school classrooms, the students, and their lesson plans should never be used for any political purpose. Period. On either side.
And that brings us to President Obama's speech on Tuesday.
The fact that he wants to speak to the nation's schoolchildren is not the big issue here.
The big issue is THE PLANS SURROUNDING AND FOLLOWING UP THE SPEECH. You know, the ones I highlighted on this blog the other day. The ones which want students to focus on "what the President wants" throughout the entire school year. The ones which didn't focus on children achieving their best in educational endeavors or on what we can do to be better citizens and help our country and our neighbors......
Obama's speech will be very innocuous, I'm sure. Even moreso now that people like me have blown the whistle on all this.
Friends, all politicians present their messages through a uniquely defined political prism. This goes against my "non-political" stance of what life should be like in the Pre-K through 12 classrooms of this nation. They can't help it, whether from the right or the left.
POINTS TO PONDER:
1) How can the same Administration, who cannot even pay car dealerships for their "clunkers" in the Cash For Clunkers program even after tripling their workforce to get the paperwork processed, somehow masterfully pull off sending lesson plans for a year-long project to every classroom in some 100,000 schools with nary a whisper to the public who pays for those schools? When an Administration can administer some things better than others, one begins to wonder what priorities cause the success and failure....
2) WHY has the White House now spent MORE taxpayer money to REVISE the lesson plans to take the focus more away from the President??? Was it just an "oversight" of Education Secretary Arne Duncan and his gang, just thinking that citizens would assume "following a President" meant "following a nation"? Heh. Think again. We caught them red-handed. If these lesson plans were so innocuous, THEY WOULDN'T BE REVISING THEM, now would they?
3) Guilt by association. In its short history, the Obama Administration has placed itself in a position by which doing this very exercise guaranteed the grassroots response.
--Appointing more "czars" with no Congressional oversight than any other President
--Trying to ram through Health Care Reform before August, before there could be discussion.
--The stimulus package that HAD to go through or we would be in a Depression.
Once a group plays "ramrod" with the American people for awhile, the people awaken and say enough. And thus, they begin to question everything they do. Why? Because past history indicates questioning is a GOOD thing to do.
The latest indication? Van Jones, the President's "Green Jobs" czar. According to Van's own words, I'm a white polluter, an "a**hole" (even though I'm an independent and NOT a Republican) and I live in a country where the last Presidential Administration colluded to kill 3,000 Americans eight years ago on 9/11.
I rest my case.
-------------------------------------------------------
In closing.......
1) I want no publicly elected official having the control of speaking to all of the nation's children without first announcing such intentions to the entire nation. Schools are for LEARNING. Learning about politics in schools belongs in Social Studies, US History, and US Government classes. I wouldn't want kindergarteners asking themselves "What Would Reagan Do?" any more than "What Would Obama Do?" I should have found out about this speech from news reports straight from the White House and not from the Drudge Report and radio talkers.
2) What would liberals be saying today if George W. Bush had created "lesson plans" to give to the nation's children so they could wonder "What does George W. Bush want me to do today"? Remember just a couple of years ago when some liberals were demanding that President Bush's pictures be taken down from public school walls?
3) Our society is in grave danger due to stupidity. You read me right. You can't read a chyron graphic on CNN, Fox, or another news or sports channel these days without seeing MULTIPLE misspellings. Adults can't name the 50 states, their Senators, or how many Justices are on the Supreme Court. How many kids don't know their times tables, 0X0 through 12X12, by heart? How many kids have to learn the Gettysburg Address by heart?
May the President's speech be short and full of direction sending all American children to their textbooks, so we can get back to reading, writing, and arithmetic.
As opposed to "What does (insert any political leader name here) want me to do??"
And thus the reason for this post. For those of you who think this is a knee-jerk reaction on my part, I present to you a history lesson.
----From the moment I stepped foot into Longdale Elementary School in August, 1997 to meet my son's Kindergarten teacher, I have been very, very involved in my childrens' education. I've been proud to be a Co-Class Mom, a Class Mom, then eventually a Vice-President and two-time President of the school's PTA and one-term President as the school's PTO. I loved every minute I spent at school with my kids, their friends, their teachers and the rest of the staff. My FAVORITE part would be when kids would see me in the hallway and greet me with either "Hi Robbie's Dad!" or "Hi Rachel's Dad!". That was THE BEST. :)
Let me take you back several years to my two years as PTA President at Longdale. Upon doing much studying and observing of the PTA on a local, state, and national level, I became extremely uncomfortable with the tenets of that organization. Though some of the "reasons" given for their hearty lobbying efforts "on behalf of education" seemed innocuous enough, further review revealed a definite bias toward one political ideology over another.
Whenever you begin to involve yourself in politics, you immediately, as an Association, should go under the microscope to be scrutinized as to what said group does with their dues, donations, etc. And, too many times, PTA monies, mostly on the National level, were being used in ways where it was abundantly clear who the PTA was comfortable associating with politically, and who did clearly did not care for.
This led me to study the then-growing movement of schools nationwide leaving the PTA in favor of PTO's, which are "Parent-Teacher Organizations", and concentrate their efforts on the local school. Period. If they choose to partner with other schools in their district, or county, or across the country, they could, but they were not forced to do so, as is done via the National PTA with mandatory dues.
Each year, Longdale families were giving more than $1,000 to the National and State PTA and essentially getting nothing in return except the "privilege" of calling themselves a PTA. Want "leadership training"? That's more $$ and a trip out of town for a weekend. I always wondered why a non-profit group would pay good money to send willing "leaders" to a "leadership conference". Isn't that something that could be done on the local or area level for free, thanks to the expertise of all the volunteers in said local or area group?
Somehow, I never thought their members magazine was worth the $1,000 plus dollars.
Well, the year I was NOT part of the PTA Executive Board, the wheels were put in motion to leave the PTA and re-form our parent group as a PTO.
What did the PTA do?
Per bylaws, we had a meeting where they sent a representative to speak to the membership to implore them not to leave, which was perfectly fine. Per bylaws, if we voted to leave, any monies that were raised as a PTA would go......to the State and National PTA.
And not to the children.
You would think the PTA people would want the money to go to help the children of the school, but I digress......
Long story short, we left the PTA for the non-political PTO, which is, by the way, NOT an "National" organization. There is no such thing as a "National PTO". Any dues you collect as a PTO stay at the school. Heck, you don't even have to CHARGE for membership, if you don't want to!
THE PTA RESPONSE:
1) They always paint PTO's and other type groups that are not associated with them "fundraising groups for schools". This is their "slime tactic" against anyone not aligned with them. Remember, for each school that there is no PTA, that's hundreds of kids and thousands of adults that do not receive their money (dues), hear their politically slanted message and less numbers they can add to their "total membership" tout of clout at State Capitals and on Capitol Hill.
Truth be told, even though the PTA's say they have a "3 to 1 ratio rule" of projects to fundraisers, you don't get flyers and handouts the first week of school about the latest PTA projects. You get hit with a huge fundraiser. PTO's can do as many projects as they want and as many or few fundraisers as necessary, all based on what's best for the school and THE KIDS. Gee, what a novel concept.
2) We were the first school in Henrico County to leave the PTA. The rest of the PTA's then, in essence, shunned us. How hard would it be for a County body to change their name from "County Council of PTAs" to "County Council of PTAs and PTOs"? That didn't happen. Nor were we included at the beginning in any activities. Our school's voice was silenced....by them, not us.
3) In 2004, when Longdale families constituted a majority of new parents and students at the then-new Greenwood Elementary School, we simply asked the new principal that, since groups from three different schools were coming together to start the new school, that both the PTA and PTO option be presented to the parents and let them decide how to organize the group at Greenwood.
The PTAers hated that idea. We had a meeting, though. The PTA representative attempted to grandstand and take the entire alloted hour of speaking, knowing the hall was being used by another group later and that we'd have to vacate. My wife had to go find the principal, who had left the room, to come back in and basically shut him up.
The parents voted to form a PTO. At the first meeting of parents interested in wanting to form it, a group of PTA supporters came and effectively staged a coup d'etat. How did they eventually win?
A formation committee packed with Pro-PTA'ers botched up (on purpose, I suspect?) the formation process to the point where they then later came back and convinced enough people that the ONLY way to get the group going was to form as a PTA so the PTA could help them.
For example, they said it would cost thousands to lawyers to form the PTO. Lie. We did it at Longdale for free.
It went on and on and on. For months.
Almost AN ENTIRE SCHOOL YEAR went by, and these people were perfectly content to waste all this time where THE STUDENTS could be benefiting, simply to get their way.
--------------------------
When people are motivated by politics, it's amazing how many of them make decisions and do things which actually go against what they claim their core beliefs are. For example, if you are "only looking out for the children", why spend so much money that could be used in the classroom strengthening an association whose existence has already been proven to be not necessary?
Did you know around 3 out of every 4 "parent-teacher" groups in America are NOT PTA's?
No wonder they're going nuts! Where will they get the money to "promote their cause"? Dry up the dues and you're in trouble.
-------------------------
Why did I and do I support PTOs? One big reason is that they are NON-POLITICAL.
Public school classrooms, the students, and their lesson plans should never be used for any political purpose. Period. On either side.
And that brings us to President Obama's speech on Tuesday.
The fact that he wants to speak to the nation's schoolchildren is not the big issue here.
The big issue is THE PLANS SURROUNDING AND FOLLOWING UP THE SPEECH. You know, the ones I highlighted on this blog the other day. The ones which want students to focus on "what the President wants" throughout the entire school year. The ones which didn't focus on children achieving their best in educational endeavors or on what we can do to be better citizens and help our country and our neighbors......
Obama's speech will be very innocuous, I'm sure. Even moreso now that people like me have blown the whistle on all this.
Friends, all politicians present their messages through a uniquely defined political prism. This goes against my "non-political" stance of what life should be like in the Pre-K through 12 classrooms of this nation. They can't help it, whether from the right or the left.
POINTS TO PONDER:
1) How can the same Administration, who cannot even pay car dealerships for their "clunkers" in the Cash For Clunkers program even after tripling their workforce to get the paperwork processed, somehow masterfully pull off sending lesson plans for a year-long project to every classroom in some 100,000 schools with nary a whisper to the public who pays for those schools? When an Administration can administer some things better than others, one begins to wonder what priorities cause the success and failure....
2) WHY has the White House now spent MORE taxpayer money to REVISE the lesson plans to take the focus more away from the President??? Was it just an "oversight" of Education Secretary Arne Duncan and his gang, just thinking that citizens would assume "following a President" meant "following a nation"? Heh. Think again. We caught them red-handed. If these lesson plans were so innocuous, THEY WOULDN'T BE REVISING THEM, now would they?
3) Guilt by association. In its short history, the Obama Administration has placed itself in a position by which doing this very exercise guaranteed the grassroots response.
--Appointing more "czars" with no Congressional oversight than any other President
--Trying to ram through Health Care Reform before August, before there could be discussion.
--The stimulus package that HAD to go through or we would be in a Depression.
Once a group plays "ramrod" with the American people for awhile, the people awaken and say enough. And thus, they begin to question everything they do. Why? Because past history indicates questioning is a GOOD thing to do.
The latest indication? Van Jones, the President's "Green Jobs" czar. According to Van's own words, I'm a white polluter, an "a**hole" (even though I'm an independent and NOT a Republican) and I live in a country where the last Presidential Administration colluded to kill 3,000 Americans eight years ago on 9/11.
I rest my case.
-------------------------------------------------------
In closing.......
1) I want no publicly elected official having the control of speaking to all of the nation's children without first announcing such intentions to the entire nation. Schools are for LEARNING. Learning about politics in schools belongs in Social Studies, US History, and US Government classes. I wouldn't want kindergarteners asking themselves "What Would Reagan Do?" any more than "What Would Obama Do?" I should have found out about this speech from news reports straight from the White House and not from the Drudge Report and radio talkers.
2) What would liberals be saying today if George W. Bush had created "lesson plans" to give to the nation's children so they could wonder "What does George W. Bush want me to do today"? Remember just a couple of years ago when some liberals were demanding that President Bush's pictures be taken down from public school walls?
3) Our society is in grave danger due to stupidity. You read me right. You can't read a chyron graphic on CNN, Fox, or another news or sports channel these days without seeing MULTIPLE misspellings. Adults can't name the 50 states, their Senators, or how many Justices are on the Supreme Court. How many kids don't know their times tables, 0X0 through 12X12, by heart? How many kids have to learn the Gettysburg Address by heart?
May the President's speech be short and full of direction sending all American children to their textbooks, so we can get back to reading, writing, and arithmetic.
As opposed to "What does (insert any political leader name here) want me to do??"
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Sorry, Susan!
Susan Roesgen Out at CNN
Breaking: TVNewser has learned CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen's contract will not be renewed and she will be leaving the network.
Roesgen, you'll recall, was criticized for her coverage at the tax day tea parties in April, when she said the event she was covering in Chicago was, "anti-CNN since this is highly promoted by the right-wing, conservative network Fox."
Roesgen took a break for a few weeks after that reporting and returned to the air in May covering the Drew Peterson arrest. Most recently, she covered Michael Jackson's death from Los Angeles. Roesgen joined CNN in 2005.
When TVNewser asked whether Roesgen's comments at the Chicago tea party rally had anything to do with her not being renewed, a CNN spokesperson said, "I can't comment on personnel matters."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob's Commentary: After her ABOMINABLE performance trying to take up for President Obama at her fateful "tea party" report, this is deserved. I am not "happy" over her losing their job, but do believe she dug her own grave in Atlanta. Her Fox comments that day weren't what really ticks me off, it was her unbelievably condescending "know-it-all" attitude while "conducting" alleged "interviews" which she tried to turn into verbal spats or "liberal teaching moments".
But relax, Susan fans. She'll be at MSNBC before you can say Rachel Maddow.
Breaking: TVNewser has learned CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen's contract will not be renewed and she will be leaving the network.
Roesgen, you'll recall, was criticized for her coverage at the tax day tea parties in April, when she said the event she was covering in Chicago was, "anti-CNN since this is highly promoted by the right-wing, conservative network Fox."
Roesgen took a break for a few weeks after that reporting and returned to the air in May covering the Drew Peterson arrest. Most recently, she covered Michael Jackson's death from Los Angeles. Roesgen joined CNN in 2005.
When TVNewser asked whether Roesgen's comments at the Chicago tea party rally had anything to do with her not being renewed, a CNN spokesperson said, "I can't comment on personnel matters."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob's Commentary: After her ABOMINABLE performance trying to take up for President Obama at her fateful "tea party" report, this is deserved. I am not "happy" over her losing their job, but do believe she dug her own grave in Atlanta. Her Fox comments that day weren't what really ticks me off, it was her unbelievably condescending "know-it-all" attitude while "conducting" alleged "interviews" which she tried to turn into verbal spats or "liberal teaching moments".
But relax, Susan fans. She'll be at MSNBC before you can say Rachel Maddow.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Yeah, the CNN lady.......
Click the title to see a new blog find, "Unliberaled Woman" to read her comments (and see if you haven't already), the now-famous CNN "report" from a Tea Party on Wednesday.
There are reports that Tea Partiers there were calling her the "B" word, which, if so, is completely uncalled for.
But I must say if Jackie Robinson could spend two seasons on the baseball diamond enduring the most heinous of hecklings and epithets and not respond, the least Susan Roesgen could do is the same, for about three minutes.
Be a reporter, or get off the mike.
Oh, and guess what she "reported" during an anti-Bush rally in New Orleans? Click here to find out! (Thanks Michelle!)
There are reports that Tea Partiers there were calling her the "B" word, which, if so, is completely uncalled for.
But I must say if Jackie Robinson could spend two seasons on the baseball diamond enduring the most heinous of hecklings and epithets and not respond, the least Susan Roesgen could do is the same, for about three minutes.
Be a reporter, or get off the mike.
Oh, and guess what she "reported" during an anti-Bush rally in New Orleans? Click here to find out! (Thanks Michelle!)
CONTENT ADVISORY----So this is how low liberal media will go.....
No commentary necessary. (WARNING: there is vulgar content in the linked story)
Sunday, March 16, 2008
SHOCKER!!! Laurie Dhue and Fox News part ways!! NO!!!!
Read here.
She has now completed the "Cable News Trifecta", working at MSNBC, and CNN before that. Where does she go now???
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Live From New York, it's Hillary...and Hillary!
DEFT political move on the part of the Clinton campaign. Could be the best decision they've made since New Hampshire.
Click here for the "preview" article; I can confirm, she was on. Though she wasn't the greatest (after all, she's not an improv comedienne), her "Live From New York" intro was good and will be all over the news through Tuesday.
Click here for the "preview" article; I can confirm, she was on. Though she wasn't the greatest (after all, she's not an improv comedienne), her "Live From New York" intro was good and will be all over the news through Tuesday.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Live Blog: The Final Debate???
Too good of an opportunity to pass up......
....but we also will update you on Big Brother...... :)
One quick thought.....will Obama Girl get to ask a question? :)
----------------------------------
I don't care much for Brian Williams. He reminds me (and it certainly may not be true) of the guy who is pretty sure he knows a little more than you do.
Tim Russert is fine by me.
904pm-----Clinton camp yells, "The press did it again!!" They showed two of the faces of Hillary.
905pm-----First use of "15 million people left out of health insurance"....
906pm-----"....so far as I know....." She doesn't know yet if the Obama picture came from her camp?
907pm-----Obama's first comments: negative mailings about "15 million people". Is this our drinking game mantra tonight?
908pm-----"force them to have it...." Those without health care? Force them? Want to hear Hillary's response.....
909pm-----"Senator Clinton....her campaign that is.....", separating her just a bit from the mailings. Obama trying to go both ways here?
910pm-----"Do what is right", Clinton says regarding having health care for everyone. Clinton uses "insurance" first; good move by her. Everyone hates their health insurance people! Unless they work there. :)
"Achieve Universal Health Care"? Party represented this since Harry Truman? Who are the "independents" who have studied her plan?
912pm-----Obama I do, she says I don't. Obama pulls out a Clinton Secretary of Labor who approves his plan as better financially.
How does she "enforce a mandate", he asks? Massachusetts imposes fines?
913pm-----Clinton: "This is too important!" No difference in any mandate, she says! Good point, number two. But now she throws in Social Security and Medicare. Shaky move as it proves her plan is nothing more than a government takeover of 15 percent of the nation's GDP.....
"...nearly everybody"?? She really used that term??
915pm-----It's Obama's experts vs. Clinton's experts!! Put 'em in a steel cage!!! Hit the experts with a chair!!!!
Obama strikes a blow. "Clinton's experts say there's not much difference in the plans"....
917pm-----Clinton very aggressive, using the emergency room scenario and young people will die!! Obama's got you covered up to age 25.
918pm-----Brian Williams says 16 minutes is enough on health care.
I HEAR BOOS!!! STUPID MOVE, HILLARY!!!! Whine, whine, whine!! "Why do I always get the first question? Should we ask Senator Obama if he's comfortable?"
Obviously, she is already frustrated that she apparently didn't score the blow she personally hoped for on the health care issue. So now it's, "THE PRESS DOESN'T LIKE ME!!!" Good Lord, what was the question???
Oh, NAFTA!
Hillary says I'm anti-NAFTA (but the 90s??) and we should have a "real debate". Obama returns serve with Hillary's 2004 quote on NAFTA and New York State. He applauds Hillary for her stand now, subtly. Man, he's deft. He brings in the China toys and foreign medicines.
No sweat on his brow yet.....
923pm: Russert to Clinton....oh, lots of quotes from hubby and her. NAFTA gone in six months under Hillary? Be clear! No "gone", we must renegotiate.
She bounces back on splitting the issue by splitting her state geographically.
Russert vs. Clinton II: Apparently Hillary says Russert doesn't read the Cleveland Plain Dealer. This is great! NOW, if Russert would just press Obama the SAME way!!
David Gergen says in the White House, she wasn't happy about NAFTA. But people also say she never threw lamps.
Russert to Obama....renegotiate. "Senator Clinton is right". If that's his heart, then cool. Otherwise, maybe he's not as schooled on this issue. Rest of this answer sounds solid.
Obama Strategy: "If there's no difference between us on an issue, agree, compliment, then discuss your knowledge and solutions".
Russert: Excellent turnaround on Obama with regard to Ohio!! Obama skirts answer, says "I've got a plan". Don't sound like Kerry!!! Weak point for him tonight.
930pm....ALREADY!!
BIG BROTHER UPDATE AT 930pm: Allison is going after Sheila.
Russert to Clinton, again.....is 5 million too exuberant? 5 million new jobs???
You didn't get 200,000 jobs for New York State, you lost 30,000!!
She thought Al Gore would be President. Wonder if there was an asterisk on that comment back then?
Ohio becomes her Green State! No more Red and Blue states??
933pm: She'd never compare us to Germany in a debate in the general campaign!
934pm: Foreign policy question from Williams to Obama regarding Clinton comparing you to Bush 43. How were those comments unfair?
Obama: Experience doesn't equal longevity in Washington. He goes to the Iraq War vote, which is always a killer for Hillary. 12 billion dollars a month sent out when it should be here.
He now goes over Pakistan, telling truth about Musharrf (certainly not our greatest ally!!).....
Hillary? Are we taking a chance with Barack?
"You know, I've been here and there, done this and that.....". NEW strategy on Iraq question. He didn't have to vote in 2002!!! He was just talking!!!
Is this a good move on her "talking only, no results" theme? Good shot, if you ask me. Good move, Hillary!
938pm: Obama said he wanted to bomb Pakistan. His hands come down, but he didn't try to interrupt. Oh dear, back to 80 countries (somebody check her visa!!)....."I can hold my own." Does this mean Obama will wither??
Obama says it's more than words. "It's not I told you so, it's to give you insight as to how I make decisions." "Bus in the ditch....who made the decision to do that? She gave in to George Bush "on Day One". WOW!!!!!
SERIOUS counterpunch by Barack. This is a GREAT exchange, though I have a faint hope that somehow, still, we may still get one exchange without the words "experience and change".
Final sentence by Obama putting Clinton's war vote in McCain's camp until her run for President....serious shot to the gut!
Russert to Obama: Iraq says "GET OUT!" Do you get out, Obama? He says yes, but also meet our security interests.
"Careful getting out as careless as we were getting in." Good line. Bet he didn't come up with it. :)
Russert to Clinton: "GET OUT?" You'd listen? Hillary, "absolutely!"
We interrupt for Russert's do we go back in? As he put it, "...and Iraq goes to hell"...
Hillary "you're hypothetical, Tim!"
Russert: "No, it's reality."
Clinton: "No, this isn't reality."
That'll be a BAD SOUND BITE for Hillary.
945pm: A new left hook from Hillary; if Barack's gonna talk about being on the Armed Services Committee, what about NATO? Why haven't you had any hearings?
946pm: Obama honestly answers about the committee! Good move!
Obama: "I will always reserve the right as President.....we will have to act in the best interests of the American homeland and our interests abroad....make sure we hunt them down."
THAT sounds more Presidential than picking on Tim Russert......
BIG BROTHER UPDATE: Amanda is back from the hospital and she's okay. She learns about Allison, who now returns. :) And they have a heart to heart....
BACK TO CLEVELAND: Ya think Hillary came out late on purpose to get some love??
Hmmm....the "celestial choir" soundbite! Obama: "Sounds good!"
It's a tape aired in error! Really? Obama: "I'll give her points for delivery."
Tell the wounded warriors at Walter Reed Hospital that it's all talk, he says. Obama had this answer ready probably late Sunday afternoon after he saw the soundbite for the first time.
BIG BROTHER UPDATE: The Power of Veto is NOT used! Alex and Amanda or Matt and Natalie say goodbye tomorrow night at eight, seven Central......roll credits.
Back to Hillary! 55 billion dollars back from the special interests! I want to get it back! It's Bush and members of Congress who did this!
Why didn't she work harder the past seven years to save a couple of those billion already?
Clinton is a fighter, will fight for the people of Ohio!!!
OBAMA IS INTERRUPTED!! Good!
Barack FINALLY opens the can on the First Lady experience issue. He doesn't begrudge it. Good move. His theory on taking responsibility and credit during the Bill years is alright, and I agree. But it's minor in the scheme of this election. Normal people who aren't political wonks don't care about it......
RUSSERT talks financing for the campaign. Are you waffling? You checked yes. What's the deal??!!?? Good press by Tim, but not full court like he did to HC.
Obama will sit down with McCain "IF I'm the nominee..."
Russert: You MAY go back on your word?
Russert to HC: ...you refuse to release your tax returns. Your supporter, the Governor of Ohio, said release them to his opponent. Why won't you?
HC: "It's the American people who are funding my campaign, that's obvious!----I will release my returns....", she says maybe before she becomes the nominee, but SHE DOESN'T HAVE TIME right now.....
DOESN'T SHE HAVE A CPA???
What about all your files from the Clinton White House?
HC: "As soon as we can, Tim...."
RUSSERT TO OBAMA: Do you support the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan?
BO: I can't censor him; we are not doing anything with him."
Russert now brings in Obama's pastor, who said Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness". And he pulls a Jewish quote from the pastor, too. Tough question! But it's religion, but that's no longer off limits in Presidential elections.
Obama has support from Jews, says he wants to restore a historic tradition between the African-American community and the Jewish community. He goes into that history, which I only recently learned on a PBS Special that had nothing to do with either candidate.
That is a GREAT answer.
Hillary wants to add something. I rejected the Independence Party in 2000 for being anti-Jew. That's excellent. But she thought it was a risk? That's stretching it a little. She had hardly any opposition in 2000 or 2006.
Obama: "I'll concede the point and reject and renounce." He follows up HC's real reason for her comments, that she rejects the wackos, but Barack wouldn't. He answered with the above. Wow! Someone concedes a point!
She's still going to be mad that his doing that will work to his advantage. Her saying, "That's good" or whatever she said quickly is inconsequential, but maybe does show she was all about "winning the point". I'm sure Farrakhan was near the top of her talking points memo to make sure Obama had to answer to it.
Going on 10:20pm ET.......final questions? Let's see where they go.
WILLIAMS: "How can you run with a more liberal record than Ted Kennedy?"
Barack goes first to comparing the grades given by National Review to him and Hillary, ignoring the Kennedy comparison. His "ethics package" is not "liberal", he says. "The categories don't make sense!" Obama shrugs off the "labels" and says voters are looking at issues, not "you're liberal", or "you're conservative". Decent answer.
RUSSERT: Russia. Tell me about his successor.
HC first. "He's a hand-picked successor." General answer here....I bet Obama's may have been even more "general" had he gotten it first.
Can't pronounce the name. Most of us can't. Obama coattails on Hillary's answer (see, I told you so!), then brings out some Bush/Putin discussion.
RUSSERT: Russia sends troops to retake Kosovo. What does President Obama do?
"We work with international community that also recognizes Kosovo." He also praises the work of the Bill Clinton administration for creating troops/plans to work in these situations.
--------------------------------
Tim Russert: "In your public service, what would you take back?"
HC: Her Iraq vote....then sends the conversation immediately into the public and rattles off a ton of other issues "we could have done another program, Tim." Fragmented sentence, I know.
BO: Teri Schiavo situation circa 2005 when Congress voted to intervene. I didn't stand up on the floor of the Senate and stop it. I'm a lawyer, I knew better." I quote as best I can.
Now, Obama to wax poetic....20 debates, "proud to campaign with her", as he now takes her last comment from last week.
Obama: "They want a hand-up." Whew! And all this time I thought he wanted to hand out, well, "hand-outs"!
WILLIAMS' FINAL QUESTION: What question must HC answer to prove her worthiness?
BO: Lauds her worthiness, launches into McCain and Bush, but WHAT QUESTION WOULD YOU ASK?? Anyway, "why I think I'm better....I can bring people together." He brings a "special bias in opening up government." Interesting quote there.....
WILLIAMS: And what about BO, HC?
HC: She gets one shot at the First Women President, which gets some applause. "Who can actually change the country? My experience, over 35 years....."....you know the rest.
She simply "wants to help". We need a "fighter in the White House".
--------------------------------------------------------
Don't forget the Spanish version on David Letterman's favorite channel, TELEMUNDO!!!!
Now the audience responds! Clinton shakes BO's hand, Clinton turns away from Russert, Obama goes to Russert, Russert goes to Clinton. Tim and Hillary should NEVER be a couple in the Big Brother house!!!
------------------------
Olbermann: "Field goals, no touchdowns, and field goals won't do it for Hillary Clinton."
Matthews asks what I did, WHY did she go to the "give a pillow to Obama, SNL" crap.
Not sure I wanna comment about those two much more. :) Good 'ol PMSNBC.
ANDREA MITCHELL IS HERE! She loves Hillary! Well, Mrs. Greenspan??
Hmmm....not much from her.
OVER TO CNN........"she seemed to be a little testy", says an Obama supporter. John King? "These two are tired of each other."
He is SO right! Now, excuse John, he needs to work on wedding preparations.
--------------------------------
Tim Russert is being interviewed. He's just speaking truth right now. And I didn't realize that his Russia question was directed at no one.
He grilled Clinton on tax returns and Obama on public financing.
Well, well. Interesting evening. On points, I say Obama wins 15-12 and remains current Democratic Heavyweight Champion.
Who would have thought Hillary's victory in New Hampshire would possibly be her last?
....but we also will update you on Big Brother...... :)
One quick thought.....will Obama Girl get to ask a question? :)
----------------------------------
I don't care much for Brian Williams. He reminds me (and it certainly may not be true) of the guy who is pretty sure he knows a little more than you do.
Tim Russert is fine by me.
904pm-----Clinton camp yells, "The press did it again!!" They showed two of the faces of Hillary.
905pm-----First use of "15 million people left out of health insurance"....
906pm-----"....so far as I know....." She doesn't know yet if the Obama picture came from her camp?
907pm-----Obama's first comments: negative mailings about "15 million people". Is this our drinking game mantra tonight?
908pm-----"force them to have it...." Those without health care? Force them? Want to hear Hillary's response.....
909pm-----"Senator Clinton....her campaign that is.....", separating her just a bit from the mailings. Obama trying to go both ways here?
910pm-----"Do what is right", Clinton says regarding having health care for everyone. Clinton uses "insurance" first; good move by her. Everyone hates their health insurance people! Unless they work there. :)
"Achieve Universal Health Care"? Party represented this since Harry Truman? Who are the "independents" who have studied her plan?
912pm-----Obama I do, she says I don't. Obama pulls out a Clinton Secretary of Labor who approves his plan as better financially.
How does she "enforce a mandate", he asks? Massachusetts imposes fines?
913pm-----Clinton: "This is too important!" No difference in any mandate, she says! Good point, number two. But now she throws in Social Security and Medicare. Shaky move as it proves her plan is nothing more than a government takeover of 15 percent of the nation's GDP.....
"...nearly everybody"?? She really used that term??
915pm-----It's Obama's experts vs. Clinton's experts!! Put 'em in a steel cage!!! Hit the experts with a chair!!!!
Obama strikes a blow. "Clinton's experts say there's not much difference in the plans"....
917pm-----Clinton very aggressive, using the emergency room scenario and young people will die!! Obama's got you covered up to age 25.
918pm-----Brian Williams says 16 minutes is enough on health care.
I HEAR BOOS!!! STUPID MOVE, HILLARY!!!! Whine, whine, whine!! "Why do I always get the first question? Should we ask Senator Obama if he's comfortable?"
Obviously, she is already frustrated that she apparently didn't score the blow she personally hoped for on the health care issue. So now it's, "THE PRESS DOESN'T LIKE ME!!!" Good Lord, what was the question???
Oh, NAFTA!
Hillary says I'm anti-NAFTA (but the 90s??) and we should have a "real debate". Obama returns serve with Hillary's 2004 quote on NAFTA and New York State. He applauds Hillary for her stand now, subtly. Man, he's deft. He brings in the China toys and foreign medicines.
No sweat on his brow yet.....
923pm: Russert to Clinton....oh, lots of quotes from hubby and her. NAFTA gone in six months under Hillary? Be clear! No "gone", we must renegotiate.
She bounces back on splitting the issue by splitting her state geographically.
Russert vs. Clinton II: Apparently Hillary says Russert doesn't read the Cleveland Plain Dealer. This is great! NOW, if Russert would just press Obama the SAME way!!
David Gergen says in the White House, she wasn't happy about NAFTA. But people also say she never threw lamps.
Russert to Obama....renegotiate. "Senator Clinton is right". If that's his heart, then cool. Otherwise, maybe he's not as schooled on this issue. Rest of this answer sounds solid.
Obama Strategy: "If there's no difference between us on an issue, agree, compliment, then discuss your knowledge and solutions".
Russert: Excellent turnaround on Obama with regard to Ohio!! Obama skirts answer, says "I've got a plan". Don't sound like Kerry!!! Weak point for him tonight.
930pm....ALREADY!!
BIG BROTHER UPDATE AT 930pm: Allison is going after Sheila.
Russert to Clinton, again.....is 5 million too exuberant? 5 million new jobs???
You didn't get 200,000 jobs for New York State, you lost 30,000!!
She thought Al Gore would be President. Wonder if there was an asterisk on that comment back then?
Ohio becomes her Green State! No more Red and Blue states??
933pm: She'd never compare us to Germany in a debate in the general campaign!
934pm: Foreign policy question from Williams to Obama regarding Clinton comparing you to Bush 43. How were those comments unfair?
Obama: Experience doesn't equal longevity in Washington. He goes to the Iraq War vote, which is always a killer for Hillary. 12 billion dollars a month sent out when it should be here.
He now goes over Pakistan, telling truth about Musharrf (certainly not our greatest ally!!).....
Hillary? Are we taking a chance with Barack?
"You know, I've been here and there, done this and that.....". NEW strategy on Iraq question. He didn't have to vote in 2002!!! He was just talking!!!
Is this a good move on her "talking only, no results" theme? Good shot, if you ask me. Good move, Hillary!
938pm: Obama said he wanted to bomb Pakistan. His hands come down, but he didn't try to interrupt. Oh dear, back to 80 countries (somebody check her visa!!)....."I can hold my own." Does this mean Obama will wither??
Obama says it's more than words. "It's not I told you so, it's to give you insight as to how I make decisions." "Bus in the ditch....who made the decision to do that? She gave in to George Bush "on Day One". WOW!!!!!
SERIOUS counterpunch by Barack. This is a GREAT exchange, though I have a faint hope that somehow, still, we may still get one exchange without the words "experience and change".
Final sentence by Obama putting Clinton's war vote in McCain's camp until her run for President....serious shot to the gut!
Russert to Obama: Iraq says "GET OUT!" Do you get out, Obama? He says yes, but also meet our security interests.
"Careful getting out as careless as we were getting in." Good line. Bet he didn't come up with it. :)
Russert to Clinton: "GET OUT?" You'd listen? Hillary, "absolutely!"
We interrupt for Russert's do we go back in? As he put it, "...and Iraq goes to hell"...
Hillary "you're hypothetical, Tim!"
Russert: "No, it's reality."
Clinton: "No, this isn't reality."
That'll be a BAD SOUND BITE for Hillary.
945pm: A new left hook from Hillary; if Barack's gonna talk about being on the Armed Services Committee, what about NATO? Why haven't you had any hearings?
946pm: Obama honestly answers about the committee! Good move!
Obama: "I will always reserve the right as President.....we will have to act in the best interests of the American homeland and our interests abroad....make sure we hunt them down."
THAT sounds more Presidential than picking on Tim Russert......
BIG BROTHER UPDATE: Amanda is back from the hospital and she's okay. She learns about Allison, who now returns. :) And they have a heart to heart....
BACK TO CLEVELAND: Ya think Hillary came out late on purpose to get some love??
Hmmm....the "celestial choir" soundbite! Obama: "Sounds good!"
It's a tape aired in error! Really? Obama: "I'll give her points for delivery."
Tell the wounded warriors at Walter Reed Hospital that it's all talk, he says. Obama had this answer ready probably late Sunday afternoon after he saw the soundbite for the first time.
BIG BROTHER UPDATE: The Power of Veto is NOT used! Alex and Amanda or Matt and Natalie say goodbye tomorrow night at eight, seven Central......roll credits.
Back to Hillary! 55 billion dollars back from the special interests! I want to get it back! It's Bush and members of Congress who did this!
Why didn't she work harder the past seven years to save a couple of those billion already?
Clinton is a fighter, will fight for the people of Ohio!!!
OBAMA IS INTERRUPTED!! Good!
Barack FINALLY opens the can on the First Lady experience issue. He doesn't begrudge it. Good move. His theory on taking responsibility and credit during the Bill years is alright, and I agree. But it's minor in the scheme of this election. Normal people who aren't political wonks don't care about it......
RUSSERT talks financing for the campaign. Are you waffling? You checked yes. What's the deal??!!?? Good press by Tim, but not full court like he did to HC.
Obama will sit down with McCain "IF I'm the nominee..."
Russert: You MAY go back on your word?
Russert to HC: ...you refuse to release your tax returns. Your supporter, the Governor of Ohio, said release them to his opponent. Why won't you?
HC: "It's the American people who are funding my campaign, that's obvious!----I will release my returns....", she says maybe before she becomes the nominee, but SHE DOESN'T HAVE TIME right now.....
DOESN'T SHE HAVE A CPA???
What about all your files from the Clinton White House?
HC: "As soon as we can, Tim...."
RUSSERT TO OBAMA: Do you support the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan?
BO: I can't censor him; we are not doing anything with him."
Russert now brings in Obama's pastor, who said Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness". And he pulls a Jewish quote from the pastor, too. Tough question! But it's religion, but that's no longer off limits in Presidential elections.
Obama has support from Jews, says he wants to restore a historic tradition between the African-American community and the Jewish community. He goes into that history, which I only recently learned on a PBS Special that had nothing to do with either candidate.
That is a GREAT answer.
Hillary wants to add something. I rejected the Independence Party in 2000 for being anti-Jew. That's excellent. But she thought it was a risk? That's stretching it a little. She had hardly any opposition in 2000 or 2006.
Obama: "I'll concede the point and reject and renounce." He follows up HC's real reason for her comments, that she rejects the wackos, but Barack wouldn't. He answered with the above. Wow! Someone concedes a point!
She's still going to be mad that his doing that will work to his advantage. Her saying, "That's good" or whatever she said quickly is inconsequential, but maybe does show she was all about "winning the point". I'm sure Farrakhan was near the top of her talking points memo to make sure Obama had to answer to it.
Going on 10:20pm ET.......final questions? Let's see where they go.
WILLIAMS: "How can you run with a more liberal record than Ted Kennedy?"
Barack goes first to comparing the grades given by National Review to him and Hillary, ignoring the Kennedy comparison. His "ethics package" is not "liberal", he says. "The categories don't make sense!" Obama shrugs off the "labels" and says voters are looking at issues, not "you're liberal", or "you're conservative". Decent answer.
RUSSERT: Russia. Tell me about his successor.
HC first. "He's a hand-picked successor." General answer here....I bet Obama's may have been even more "general" had he gotten it first.
Can't pronounce the name. Most of us can't. Obama coattails on Hillary's answer (see, I told you so!), then brings out some Bush/Putin discussion.
RUSSERT: Russia sends troops to retake Kosovo. What does President Obama do?
"We work with international community that also recognizes Kosovo." He also praises the work of the Bill Clinton administration for creating troops/plans to work in these situations.
--------------------------------
Tim Russert: "In your public service, what would you take back?"
HC: Her Iraq vote....then sends the conversation immediately into the public and rattles off a ton of other issues "we could have done another program, Tim." Fragmented sentence, I know.
BO: Teri Schiavo situation circa 2005 when Congress voted to intervene. I didn't stand up on the floor of the Senate and stop it. I'm a lawyer, I knew better." I quote as best I can.
Now, Obama to wax poetic....20 debates, "proud to campaign with her", as he now takes her last comment from last week.
Obama: "They want a hand-up." Whew! And all this time I thought he wanted to hand out, well, "hand-outs"!
WILLIAMS' FINAL QUESTION: What question must HC answer to prove her worthiness?
BO: Lauds her worthiness, launches into McCain and Bush, but WHAT QUESTION WOULD YOU ASK?? Anyway, "why I think I'm better....I can bring people together." He brings a "special bias in opening up government." Interesting quote there.....
WILLIAMS: And what about BO, HC?
HC: She gets one shot at the First Women President, which gets some applause. "Who can actually change the country? My experience, over 35 years....."....you know the rest.
She simply "wants to help". We need a "fighter in the White House".
--------------------------------------------------------
Don't forget the Spanish version on David Letterman's favorite channel, TELEMUNDO!!!!
Now the audience responds! Clinton shakes BO's hand, Clinton turns away from Russert, Obama goes to Russert, Russert goes to Clinton. Tim and Hillary should NEVER be a couple in the Big Brother house!!!
------------------------
Olbermann: "Field goals, no touchdowns, and field goals won't do it for Hillary Clinton."
Matthews asks what I did, WHY did she go to the "give a pillow to Obama, SNL" crap.
Not sure I wanna comment about those two much more. :) Good 'ol PMSNBC.
ANDREA MITCHELL IS HERE! She loves Hillary! Well, Mrs. Greenspan??
Hmmm....not much from her.
OVER TO CNN........"she seemed to be a little testy", says an Obama supporter. John King? "These two are tired of each other."
He is SO right! Now, excuse John, he needs to work on wedding preparations.
--------------------------------
Tim Russert is being interviewed. He's just speaking truth right now. And I didn't realize that his Russia question was directed at no one.
He grilled Clinton on tax returns and Obama on public financing.
Well, well. Interesting evening. On points, I say Obama wins 15-12 and remains current Democratic Heavyweight Champion.
Who would have thought Hillary's victory in New Hampshire would possibly be her last?
Monday, February 11, 2008
IT'S VIRGINIA!! NOT POTOMAC, NOT CHESAPEAKE!!!!!!!
One of the most irrelevant phrases in 20th Century Virginia political history was:
"The Virginia Presidential Primary"
Its needlessness continued into 2004, but......WHAT? COULD IT BE???
The Virginia Presidential Primary will actually MATTER when we go to the polls tomorrow! WE FINALLY MATTER!! HEY VIRGINIANS! GROUP HUG!!!!
So, what do I hear beginning late last Tuesday night as Super Tuesday finally came to a close??
"Next week is the Potomac Primary!"
WHAT??!!?? THE WHAT??!!??
So, suddenly, the name "Virginia" had been replaced with a nearby body of water. Later on, we are renamed the Chespeake Primary.
Potomac. Chesapeake.
I know some PR lackey in a backroom at some network or blog thought he/she was BRILLIANT coming up with this "title". Except for one little problem.....
I can't speak for those in D.C. and Maryland, but I am INSULTED by having my commonwealth's FINALLY MEANINGFUL Presidential primary be called by something other than the word "Virginia".
So, a message I sent to Anderson Cooper on his blog tonight now goes to the whole media, as if they care about me. :)
"POTOMAC TUESDAY". That's a cool title! Then you have to tell everyone where the primaries are located! For God's sake, you guys assume everyone in Nebraska, Indiana, Wyoming, and San Francisco already know what "Potomac" or "Chespeake" even means in this context!!!
"POTOMAC TUESDAY". Is it too late to change the graphics for tomorrow's coverage?
"The Virginia Presidential Primary"
Its needlessness continued into 2004, but......WHAT? COULD IT BE???
The Virginia Presidential Primary will actually MATTER when we go to the polls tomorrow! WE FINALLY MATTER!! HEY VIRGINIANS! GROUP HUG!!!!
So, what do I hear beginning late last Tuesday night as Super Tuesday finally came to a close??
"Next week is the Potomac Primary!"
WHAT??!!?? THE WHAT??!!??
So, suddenly, the name "Virginia" had been replaced with a nearby body of water. Later on, we are renamed the Chespeake Primary.
Potomac. Chesapeake.
I know some PR lackey in a backroom at some network or blog thought he/she was BRILLIANT coming up with this "title". Except for one little problem.....
I can't speak for those in D.C. and Maryland, but I am INSULTED by having my commonwealth's FINALLY MEANINGFUL Presidential primary be called by something other than the word "Virginia".
So, a message I sent to Anderson Cooper on his blog tonight now goes to the whole media, as if they care about me. :)
"POTOMAC TUESDAY". That's a cool title! Then you have to tell everyone where the primaries are located! For God's sake, you guys assume everyone in Nebraska, Indiana, Wyoming, and San Francisco already know what "Potomac" or "Chespeake" even means in this context!!!
"POTOMAC TUESDAY". Is it too late to change the graphics for tomorrow's coverage?
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Death of the Old Media I: Your morning paper......
I delivered the Richmond Times-Dispatch for 14 years.
During that time, we saw the parent company, Media General, cease publishing its afternoon equivalent, The Richmond News Leader, in 1992.
As the 2000s dawned, the Internet was booming along, and, as you could get news faster and faster, and all media outlets felt the need to have a web presence, newspapers had to do the same.
But as opposed to radio or television, the newspaper industry was the first major member of what is called today the "Old Media" to stare down the Internet, and shake in its collective boots. Why? Simple. Read THIS STORY, then continue this post....
A generation is about to arrive that asks the question:
"Why pay for and wait for the newspaper to show up on my driveway when I can read it online, and, be assured it'll never be delivered wet?"
We left the paper route at the end of 2002. There had not been much of a drop in circulation at the time, but the discussion concerning the "inevitable showdown" between the newspaper and its web site was already underway.
Some papers attempted to make people pay to read the online content, such as the New York Times. That was a complete disaster. Why?
1) New Yorkers could get their news on a number of other websites for free. I mean, how many other newspapers are in NYC, not just radio, television, et al??
2) National and world news was easily accessible from anyone from CNN.com, MSNBC.com, to "portals" such as Drudgereport.com.
----------------------------------------------------
The circulation drop, and subsequent cutting of many newspaper jobs, began in earnest last year, with 2008 looking grim; not just because of the internet issue, but, as with all media, but because of forecasts of stalled or lower overall ad revenue due to recession fears.
So, the "newspapers" with the better chance of surviving have done this:
1) Embrace the web as an active part of the printed newspaper. Drive your readers to the website for additional information (saves on paper!), teach your older readers how to be web savvy, etc.
2) SELL, SELL, SELL!!! Web advertising, whether packaged with the actual paper, or otherwise, has made a difference.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Newspaper carriers don't have to fear for their jobs for at least a few more years, in my view. The baby boomer generation, I think, pretty much still likes to have that newspaper in hand, to take to work with them, or, on Sunday morning, to peruse with their first and second cups of joe.
My generation (30-45) is also used to the paper; we'll respect both the print and the web versions, especially as smart newspapers use one to augment the other.
It's everyone born after, say, 1980 or 1981, that, one day, especially in this age of environmental awareness, will collectively ask, "Why are we still printing these dinosaurs?"
Ten years from now, maybe sooner, if you want your morning paper on, well, paper, you'll need to press "print".
New Media 1, Old Media 0. And more media forms that we thought "would never die" are about to come face to face with either their inevitable "extreme makeover", or, their demise.
During that time, we saw the parent company, Media General, cease publishing its afternoon equivalent, The Richmond News Leader, in 1992.
As the 2000s dawned, the Internet was booming along, and, as you could get news faster and faster, and all media outlets felt the need to have a web presence, newspapers had to do the same.
But as opposed to radio or television, the newspaper industry was the first major member of what is called today the "Old Media" to stare down the Internet, and shake in its collective boots. Why? Simple. Read THIS STORY, then continue this post....
A generation is about to arrive that asks the question:
"Why pay for and wait for the newspaper to show up on my driveway when I can read it online, and, be assured it'll never be delivered wet?"
We left the paper route at the end of 2002. There had not been much of a drop in circulation at the time, but the discussion concerning the "inevitable showdown" between the newspaper and its web site was already underway.
Some papers attempted to make people pay to read the online content, such as the New York Times. That was a complete disaster. Why?
1) New Yorkers could get their news on a number of other websites for free. I mean, how many other newspapers are in NYC, not just radio, television, et al??
2) National and world news was easily accessible from anyone from CNN.com, MSNBC.com, to "portals" such as Drudgereport.com.
----------------------------------------------------
The circulation drop, and subsequent cutting of many newspaper jobs, began in earnest last year, with 2008 looking grim; not just because of the internet issue, but, as with all media, but because of forecasts of stalled or lower overall ad revenue due to recession fears.
So, the "newspapers" with the better chance of surviving have done this:
1) Embrace the web as an active part of the printed newspaper. Drive your readers to the website for additional information (saves on paper!), teach your older readers how to be web savvy, etc.
2) SELL, SELL, SELL!!! Web advertising, whether packaged with the actual paper, or otherwise, has made a difference.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Newspaper carriers don't have to fear for their jobs for at least a few more years, in my view. The baby boomer generation, I think, pretty much still likes to have that newspaper in hand, to take to work with them, or, on Sunday morning, to peruse with their first and second cups of joe.
My generation (30-45) is also used to the paper; we'll respect both the print and the web versions, especially as smart newspapers use one to augment the other.
It's everyone born after, say, 1980 or 1981, that, one day, especially in this age of environmental awareness, will collectively ask, "Why are we still printing these dinosaurs?"
Ten years from now, maybe sooner, if you want your morning paper on, well, paper, you'll need to press "print".
New Media 1, Old Media 0. And more media forms that we thought "would never die" are about to come face to face with either their inevitable "extreme makeover", or, their demise.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
I'm sorry, I can't help myself.....
....I just wanted to make sure you knew that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now officially understands many of us in the "middle class" (whatever "middle class" officially is...)
From CNN.com:
"Many Americans in the middle class are living paycheck to paycheck," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters after the vote.
Strike her off the list of "clueless". :)
From CNN.com:
"Many Americans in the middle class are living paycheck to paycheck," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters after the vote.
Strike her off the list of "clueless". :)
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
I should be the guy on the right.......
He's my age. I wanted to be anchor of the CBS Evening News when I was five.
Sorry, Anderson. Move out. You're in my space!! Especially now that Erica's there! She's so cool!
Monday, August 27, 2007
CNN's "God's Warriors".....
Though I know I'm a little late in discussing this topic, I have just a few thoughts on the three-night documentary.
GREAT:
1) What was covered on all three fronts was covered very well. I especially was impressed with night one, "Jewish Warriors", for the scope and breadth of the analysis of facets of present-day Judaism, complemented by comments and views from those quite orthodox.
2) Amanpour. No one is perfect or completely unbiased, but she's about as close as they come, and having her do this made perfect sense. No one else in news comes close when it comes to credentials. Not even Anderson Cooper (insert tongue in cheek here).
3) Greg Boyd. God bless Greg Boyd!!! The point of the feature with him I absolutely cannot agree with more! STOP the marriage between evangelical Christianity and conservative American politics! I think I said this in a post a LONG time back, but if we had taken all the money spent on political causes, et al from Christians and spent it instead on feeding the poor, caring for the sick, and loving people no matter Red State or Blue State, we'd see alot more people lovin' Jesus. Let the Holy Spirit change hearts!! We focus on Jesus. Deal? Deal!
GOOD:
1) The first two nights, "Jewish", and "Muslim" Warriors. I learned much and appreciated the opportunity to do so, rather than seeing another night of Larry King bumbling through an interview on the latest with Paris Hilton/Lindsey Lohan/insert name of irrelevant person here.
2) Overall span of interview subjects; wide ranging that I could see, at least on the first two nights.
3) Rehan Seyam. Not deterred by the majority of Americans who would look at her in traditional Muslim wear (with headscarf) thinking she was a homicide bomber, she lives her faith, all the way. Her frank comments about never wanting anyone to see her body in a revealing way other than her husband was, frankly, a welcome breath of fresh air to hear a Muslim woman in America make that statement. Granted, I know, I know, if she were in an Arab nation, her story would not exist, for she wouldn't be able to be outspoken in the first place.
FAIR:
1) Night three: "Christian" Warriors. While doing a good job in discussing present day evangelical Christianity in America, it actually overdid it. How many "Religious Right White Guy" stories did we really need? Other than John Hagee's "Christian Zionist" drive, the others (Falwell, Johnson, et al) were repetitive.
2) Ron Luce and Teen Mania--much, too much emphasis on Luce looking like a Taliban leader raising the next generation of homicidal warriors....and catching them in San Fran was a nice backdrop to it all. One of the few cheap shots in the entire series.
BAD:
Did anyone else notice what few commercials were in the first night's two hours regarding the Jews, and very little additional commercial time on night two? Then, the night of the Christian Warriors...EVERY time you turn around...commercials! But first, five promos on Soledad O'Brien, Spike Lee, and the fourth airing of a Diana retrospective.
Guess which night they thought they'd get the most viewers?
VERY VERY DISAPPOINTING: Instead of talking to multiple white guy leaders of the Religious Right, why not investigating the post-modern church movement beginning a groundswell in Europe, Christian persecution around the world, and what's it like to be a Christian in a country like China? Having the whole two hours on Christianity in America actually distorted the real worldview and current world experience of the Christian Church.
On the whole, 4 out of 5 stars. It was a huge undertaking, and I applaud CNN for that. :)
GREAT:
1) What was covered on all three fronts was covered very well. I especially was impressed with night one, "Jewish Warriors", for the scope and breadth of the analysis of facets of present-day Judaism, complemented by comments and views from those quite orthodox.
2) Amanpour. No one is perfect or completely unbiased, but she's about as close as they come, and having her do this made perfect sense. No one else in news comes close when it comes to credentials. Not even Anderson Cooper (insert tongue in cheek here).
3) Greg Boyd. God bless Greg Boyd!!! The point of the feature with him I absolutely cannot agree with more! STOP the marriage between evangelical Christianity and conservative American politics! I think I said this in a post a LONG time back, but if we had taken all the money spent on political causes, et al from Christians and spent it instead on feeding the poor, caring for the sick, and loving people no matter Red State or Blue State, we'd see alot more people lovin' Jesus. Let the Holy Spirit change hearts!! We focus on Jesus. Deal? Deal!
GOOD:
1) The first two nights, "Jewish", and "Muslim" Warriors. I learned much and appreciated the opportunity to do so, rather than seeing another night of Larry King bumbling through an interview on the latest with Paris Hilton/Lindsey Lohan/insert name of irrelevant person here.
2) Overall span of interview subjects; wide ranging that I could see, at least on the first two nights.
3) Rehan Seyam. Not deterred by the majority of Americans who would look at her in traditional Muslim wear (with headscarf) thinking she was a homicide bomber, she lives her faith, all the way. Her frank comments about never wanting anyone to see her body in a revealing way other than her husband was, frankly, a welcome breath of fresh air to hear a Muslim woman in America make that statement. Granted, I know, I know, if she were in an Arab nation, her story would not exist, for she wouldn't be able to be outspoken in the first place.
FAIR:
1) Night three: "Christian" Warriors. While doing a good job in discussing present day evangelical Christianity in America, it actually overdid it. How many "Religious Right White Guy" stories did we really need? Other than John Hagee's "Christian Zionist" drive, the others (Falwell, Johnson, et al) were repetitive.
2) Ron Luce and Teen Mania--much, too much emphasis on Luce looking like a Taliban leader raising the next generation of homicidal warriors....and catching them in San Fran was a nice backdrop to it all. One of the few cheap shots in the entire series.
BAD:
Did anyone else notice what few commercials were in the first night's two hours regarding the Jews, and very little additional commercial time on night two? Then, the night of the Christian Warriors...EVERY time you turn around...commercials! But first, five promos on Soledad O'Brien, Spike Lee, and the fourth airing of a Diana retrospective.
Guess which night they thought they'd get the most viewers?
VERY VERY DISAPPOINTING: Instead of talking to multiple white guy leaders of the Religious Right, why not investigating the post-modern church movement beginning a groundswell in Europe, Christian persecution around the world, and what's it like to be a Christian in a country like China? Having the whole two hours on Christianity in America actually distorted the real worldview and current world experience of the Christian Church.
On the whole, 4 out of 5 stars. It was a huge undertaking, and I applaud CNN for that. :)
Sunday, August 26, 2007
I have some catching up to do......
....I have much to say regarding several things; but have been either in bed, at work, and/or in limbo the past several days.
--The CNN Documentary Series, "God's Warriors" gives me the chance to offer lots of comments on not only the TV event, but the state of religion.
--Been studying online recently on our good friends in the crazy camp of Christianity, Prosperity Theology, with special guest stars, holy laughter, and getting caught using earpieces.
--The upcoming football season, of course!
--Current events (Utah, Greece, Floods, Drought, some TV news changes, Supertramp in a commercial, the Orioles' pitching staff, the LLWS walk-off HR, and more...)
BUT....no commentary on Michael Vick.
I'll be around; promise. :)
--The CNN Documentary Series, "God's Warriors" gives me the chance to offer lots of comments on not only the TV event, but the state of religion.
--Been studying online recently on our good friends in the crazy camp of Christianity, Prosperity Theology, with special guest stars, holy laughter, and getting caught using earpieces.
--The upcoming football season, of course!
--Current events (Utah, Greece, Floods, Drought, some TV news changes, Supertramp in a commercial, the Orioles' pitching staff, the LLWS walk-off HR, and more...)
BUT....no commentary on Michael Vick.
I'll be around; promise. :)
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
When Cable News looks weird......
Kiran Chetry....on CNN.
I haven't seen her on TV there yet; I had heard she bolted Fox after some, ah, negotiating issues, I reckon.
She always struck me as a Fox News person "through and through", as it were. Really don't know why.
So, when I saw the above screen grab online tonight (thanks to reportercaps.com), I thought, surreal.
Kinda like when your favorite wrestler left one promotion for another back in the 1980s or 1990s. What? Hulk Hogan in WCW? It doesn't LOOK RIGHT!!!
Good luck, Kiran!! :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)