Media Scorecard: Obama Vs. Clinton

Now that this whole 2008 Democratic Presidential Nominating contest winds down, lots of folks are dropping their guard, particularly in the media.  Those of us on DailyKos spend a lot of time on the net, plus on the cable networks getting our fix. We have seen and heard lots of opinions under the guise of reporting.

But with the exceptions of identified partisans like Begala, Carville, Jamaal Simmons and Lanny Davis most of the CNN and MSNBC crews have pretended to be strictly neutral.  But I have been watching this stuff very closely since February 2007, and I have come to some conclusions about who was supporting who.

OBAMA--Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Jonathan Alter, Tim Russert, David Gergen, Donna Brazile, Jeffrey Toobin, Roland Martin, Rachel Maddow, Bob Schieffer, Richard Wolfe, Eugene Robinson, Arianna Huffington, David Broder, Michelle Bernard

CLINTON--Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, Bill Press,Craig Crawford,  Willie Brown, Candy Crowley, Dan Abrams, George Stephanapolous, Peter Fenn, John McLaughlin, Hillary Rosen, Joan Walsh

UNBIASED--David Gregory, Anderson Cooper, Gloria Borger, Tom Brokaw, Howard Fineman

What do i do with Wolf Blitzer? And did I miss any obvious partisans and neutrals?

•  tips/recs?

  barack obama, 44th president of the united states

  by maxnyc on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:53:17 PM PDT

•  Gregory is biased toward dumbassery!

  by dlh77489 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:54:09 PM PDT

  •  The 'unbiased' are the Republicans, duh. n/t

    by BetterTogether on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:42:53 PM PDT

•  Blitzer is so pro-Hillary it's painful to watch.

  And I don't.

  by Virginian in Spain on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:54:42 PM PDT

  •  ok..there's one vote for wolf--clinton,

    tho i have to say i only watch him on sundays and election night not his situation room

    by maxnyc on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:56:51 PM PDT

•  "UNBIASED"

  Fineman?  He is on Keith O too much for me to think he is a closet Hillary supporter.

  The rest of the unbiased just have a really good poker face.  I'd love to get a couple drinks in them to see what they really think.

  PS: I'm not so sure about Buchanan.  Depends if he is thinking like a republican or democrat.

  by spookthesunset on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:03:55 PM PDT

•  Buchanan...

  Clearly does NOT want Obama to win the nomination.  But is that because he supports Hillary, or because he thinks that Hillary will be easier to beat???

  Just wondering.

  by JWC on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:15:16 PM PDT

  •  he's a racist, that's why eom

    by carlyle4 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:21:35 PM PDT

•  Tina Fey

  is a huge and influential supporter of Clinton.

  by Helenann on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:17:01 PM PDT

  •  Fey isn't media; she's entertainment

    by Glinda on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:28:45 PM PDT

    •  i dont find her so entertaining

      by tamandua on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:48:03 PM PDT

      •  She writes terrific men's roles

        But, alas, the roles she writes for women, including herself, are sad and pathetic.

        by Glinda on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:17:49 PM PDT

•  Blitzer for Clinton; Cafferty for Obama.

  by Namtrix on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:19:38 PM PDT

•  Russert?

   Tim Russert is NOT an Obama supporter. He's a frigging Republican -- he flogged the Wright thing to the bitter end.

   He looked somber and shellshocked on Tuesday night when he finally admitted that Obama was going to win.

   I always pegged Maddow as an (honest) Hillary supporter who began to back away from her as her campiagn got more and more Rovian...

   

  by Buzzer on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:20:35 PM PDT

  •  There was a time Rachel did seem

    pro-Clinton and honestly I'm sure Keith O. was too or at least he was very cynical about Obama.

    Rachel was fair whoever she liked, I didn't care. She is very clear sighted, she just sees through crap easily. Sadly some of the crap became Clinton's and them more and more. I think she is more just pro-truth and I love that.
    In early debates Clinton had a LOT of fans. She was great, it's a good arena for her. She showed her smarts, came across as quick and strong and even warm.
    really even Matthews talked really well of her then, how presidential she seemed, how his view had changed. She was easy to like and admire then.

    It's when things quit going smoothly that the bad side started coming out in her campaign and in her and the dirty tricks and smears started. That's when people started moving away, some more quickly then others.
    Olbermann's first harshness towards hers was what followed those NH tears, her immediate shift into attacking Obama. That really bugged him and he thought the clip should have included that immediate shift. But he still wasn't big on Obama. He stayed cynical. Well he is a bit of a cynical guy so that didn't bother me. I don't know what shifted him but he is certainly prObama now.

    Matthews goes back and forth. I don't think you can say any media person is prObama when they make no attempt to go beyond the surface of a big story. I'm not sure how many times he repeated "How could he keep going to that church for 20 years?"
    Tamaron Hall of MSNMC told Chris (and others) that she went there, that it's one of two churches you're encouraged to go to when you move there.
    She never heard that kind of language and she checked with more than a dozen people who regularly attend there and they didn't hear that language and it shocked them.
    Matthew's response? That it was hard to believe. That's it. He has heard and ignored other such statements too.

    I could share a statement like that made on most shows, no one cared, it was always dismissed. Russert ignored a few.

    Mathews harped on the bitter statement too, giving it no context, not bothering to show times he said it before and better. (I sent them,they were easy to find, someday I'll give up) Worse he said several times DURING the lead up to PA that those words were what Obama really felt, he made fun of them with his rich friends.

    If Pro-Obama means not always bashing him...then you can include him.
    I don't care who any like, I wish they would seek facts, seek context and report honestly. Of course in that case they would sound pro-Obama.

    by joynow on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:43:50 PM PDT

    •  i like your comments a lot...thnx

      i think in the early days--all thruout last year and those debates obama gave no one ANYTHING to work with. but after the jj dinner everyone had an orgasm--matthews, russert, david yepsen.

      they all helped push her disastrous debate performance in philadelphia (the driver's license story)

      by maxnyc on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:09:54 PM PDT

•  Interesting.

  It seems like Willie Brown, is coming down, on the Obama side. You may wanna put Dan Abrams, on the neutral side.  Michelle Bernard, has been neutral lately.  Also, Laurence O'donnel  is for Obama as well.

  by Excelscior1 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:25:57 PM PDT

  •  I don't know that I like Willie Brown...

    ... changing for Obama... never been a fan of his since his CA Assembly Speaker days.

    The quintessential slippery politician.

    by highacidity on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:37:29 PM PDT

  •  Abrams often generous to Hillary on his dumb

    scorecards

    by no expert on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:40:45 PM PDT

•  What about the one guy

  I truly forget his name, but he got in trouble over the "Pimping Chelsea" comment.

  by egarratt on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:53:19 PM PDT

  •  David Schuster. He isn't pro-anyone

    Could call him neutral. He reacts more to incidents and events than to people.

    by joynow on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:46:25 PM PDT

•  I'm not seeing it the same

  And I suppose there are as many opinions as there will be comments.  

  My changes:  

  Neutral:  Michelle Bernard, Rachel Maddow, Chuck Todd.  Russert, maybe, although to call him neutral feels strange.  Just "gotcha", maybe?  

  Clinton:  Wolf (for sure!), Gergen, Scarborough, Broder

  by 57andFemale on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:55:33 PM PDT

  •  I agree that Rachel

    is neutral to people, she is just about what's true.
    Chuck Todd is mainly neutral because he is about the math and facts.
    Scarborough is more anti-Obama than pro-Clinton but he definitely cheers Clinton.

    Gergen is pro-Clinton but honestly...more fair than most. He gently lies for her (NAFTA. He knows why she was against it, timing. She wanted health care first before they got Dems mad) But he is often a voice of reason. If all her supporters were like that, that would be great.

    by joynow on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:51:40 PM PDT

•  Blitzer is for McCain.

  by brooklynbadboy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:02:35 PM PDT

•  Biggest (asshole) omission: Scarborough

  for Clinton.

  by kosophile on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:12:51 PM PDT

•  Fineman very pro-Obama

  He was the "voice of reason" pointing out that the Clintons had no chance of winning well before PA and was the only pundit saying PA didn't matter on the night of the PA primary.

  by FredFred on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:48:44 PM PDT