Could she be any more blatantly against Hillary Clinton? During an interview with Dee Dee Myers, which I think was supposed to have been about Dee Dee’s book, somehow Andrea Mitchell managed to bash on Senator Clinton – AGAIN!!!! It’s obvious to the world that NBC and the rest of the MSM don’t want Senator Clinton to be nominated for POTUS; no matter what she does your so-called “reporters” rip her to shreds! For goodness sake what gives you all the right to tear this woman apart? Why are you all so vicious to her? She has had the guts to run for the highest office in the land even though well before she decided to run she knew that she would have been a target, but I’m sure that even she couldn’t have even dreamt of just how targeted she was going to be and how vicious “reporters” (i.e. Chris “I get a tingle running up my leg” Matthews)! Please try to keep your “reporters” on a leash and have them just report “facts” – such as Obama’s non-record of over 129 “present” votes while in Illinois State Senate; his “boneheaded” mistakes of pushing the wrong button when he actually did manage to cast a vote; his flip-flopping to suit whomever his audience is at the time; his “cheating little kid in school” ways of always waiting to hear what Senator Clinton says when it comes to policy then basically repeating what she says – except of course for the vote on Iraq – oh wait – he COULDN’T vote on Iraq because he wasn’t a US Senator then, but wait again – he did say in his book The Audacity of Hope that he WASN’T SURE HOW HE WOULD HAVE VOTED given the information that Senators Clinton, McCain and all the other US Senators had at the time – oh wait again – he DID keep voting to FUND the war he is SO MUCH AGAINST; his inability to call even one meeting on Afghanistan because he’s been too busy campaining for POTUS; his stand on NAFTA where he’s only against it when he’s speaking to the people of Ohio and other states that have been affected negatively by NAFTA, because his aide told the Canadians that was only campaign rhetoric; his little trip to Kenya to support his murdering cousin Odinga; his mis-statements about being conceived because of the march on Selma which happened four years AFTER he was born; that it was because of the Kennedy’s that his father got out of Kenya (or whatever!); and, I won’t even mention Rezko, Wright, Michelle, Emil Jones, Ayers – I could go on and on (as I’m sure you have guessed by now) but I will end this now by asking that you please report only the facts for all three candidates – or at least, if Obama is the nominee give him fair warning of what is heading his way, because we all know that in November once the MSM have finished with him it will make the tornadoes that ripped through Atlanta look like a little spring breeze!

Thank you!

P.S. Ask Andrea if SHE would like to run for President in 2012, I’m sure that she would love to get the same treats that Senator Clinton has received during this campaign!

My experience as a delegate in Texas was illuminating. It was thrilling to meet so many folks, and it was disheartening to be threatened and intimated. My Precinct Chair and Delegation Chair was an Obama delegate; she was not professional; she was not neutral.

In the Texas county caucus, if you file what is called a “challenge,” — nasty word — you have to notify the Delegation Chair and each individual by email or mail. I filed a challenge because the Precinct Chair sent in an incorrect number for Obama
Delegates and several Obama delegates/alternates did not have voter ID numbers associated with the precinct in which they voted. I complied with the Dem. Party rules for filing the “challenge.” I subsequently received a threatening email from one of the individuals and the Delegation Chair/Precinct Chair took steps that were not professional.

The Precinct Chair’s unprofessional comments to me played into the Obama Delegation Captain’s attempt during the caucus to force me to pull down my request for the Parlimentarian. I had a right to ask for a ruling. Neverthess, the Obama Captain pulled me aside, got nose to nose; told me to pull down the request and told me he “googled” me, knew where I lived and what I did for a living. If I hadn’t been threatened by bigger and tougher bullies than this twig of a fellow, I very well might have backed down.

The Credentials Committee, frankly, was inadequate. They told me the Obama Delegate number was corrected and to withdraw my challenge. The number was not corrected. They did not confirm that the challenged delegates had properly signed “Statement of Residences,” which my challenge asked for. And this county’s Dem Party’s advise to the Credential Committee literally changed the rules for filing a Challenge! Additionally, this county’s advise to folks for filing a challenge repeatedly was inaccurate; consequently, so many folks filed what they thought was a proper “challenge,” only to discover that their emails were in fact not properly filed “challenges.”

My comment to Texas Dem Party Chairman, when he sent out his PR statement about not verifying caucus voters, is that he is acting like Clayton Williams who infamously, during his campaign against Ann Richards, said that rain was like rape and one should lie back and enjoy it. (I hope I don’t offend anyone by quoting Williams.)

You gotta a beef, call the campaign and ask to speak to your area’s attorney.

I recognize that television news executives must be mindful of viewership, including viewership statistics, all the while attempting to adhere to accuracy and to live in the Parthenon of journalism, “unbiased reporting.” My view is that NBC’s need to claim certain viewership statistics has cannibalized it’s brain, heart and hands that held onto “unbiased reporting.”

Our presidential campaign has called into question issues involving racism and sexism.

MSNBC’s actions appears to be sexist, racist and politically biased; and therefore, arguably, by extension, NBC News is sexist, racist and politically biased. Let’s take a recent example in which Andrea Mitchell commented that Sen. Clinton’s campaign is not a testament to Dee Dee Meyer’s book title, Why Women Should Rule. First, the title of the book is ludicrous. Second, if the book title was “Why Afro-Americans Should Rule,” and Ms. Mitchell indicated that an Afro-American’s presidential race was not a testament to support the book’s title, her comments would have been condemned by the network. Interestingly, both MSNBC and NBC are using Prof. Dyson as an expert commentator, even though his book urges Afro-American women to accept the sexist “ho” language of rap music. I seem to recall that MSNBC fired Mr. Don Imus for a “ho” comment.

I used to watch Mr. Chris Mathews’ MSNBC show as well as his NBC Sunday show which airs at 6:30 AM in my time zone. But both shows became nothing but rants against candidates Mr. Mathews didn’t like, including Sen. Clinton; and his shows became nothing but spittle-laden kisses for the candidates he did like. The shows weren’t thought provoking; they were mind numbing. I can appreciate that Mr. Mathews appears to have a large ego, like all of us; and, like anyone in the television/print media business, he wants to be influential. But Mr. Mathews is like a Luella Parsons — a caricature with floppy big hats. (Jon Stewart’s diss of Mathews when Mathews appeared to pitch his book said volumes.)

I used to watch “Countdown.” I thought the audacity of Keith Olberman, even dressed in his “Guys and Dolls” gangster-style pinstripe suits, was interesting. And then he, too, latched onto a programming scenario that insisted upon negative Sen. Clinton stories. The programming consisted of bash Clinton and bash Coulter and bash OReilly.

I also heard Ms. Mitchell as well as “Morning Joe” hosts repeatedly comment that the Clinton so-called “hospital story” contributed to the “credibility gap” for Sen. Clinton; conversely, there was very little commentary/publicity when the story was proven true by the Washington Post. Interestingly, the same lack of coverage about the truth of this story was evidenced by Fox Network. Since Fox is going after a particular viewership, without any thought of objectivity, I’ll assume that NBC and MSNBC is going after a particular viewership with the same absence of consideration for “objectivity.”

Since you and Mr. Griffin are now tied at the hip —MSNBC and NBC are essentially one and the same — and MSNBC eschews adherence to objectivity and demonstrates an habitual aversion to insisting that its hosts refrain from exhibiting sexism, then I have to conclude that the network has embraced the era of “penny newspapers” that never, never clothed their publications in the seriousness of “objectivity.” These publications were biased, and sometimes salacious, soap-boxes. Fox Cable embraced this approach; apparently, NBC and MSNBC has embraced the approach as it attempts to vie for viewers.

I don’t know if your approach will fail or succeed for your network. For me, it failed. I don’t watch MSNBC or NBC anymore.