Florida! Florida! Florida! (Tuesday's Show)
Hi everyone. Out of curiosity, how many seasons did your neck of the woods go through today? Because I think my area went through about all of them. Early this afternoon we were literally breaking records with a high of 73, but mere hours later it plummeted 50 degrees. No, not to 50 degrees; by 50 degrees, with a final low eventually getting down to about 12. Brrr. And of course during that free fall we had storms that were accompanied by snow flurries, sleet, and hail, not to mention the 50 to 60 mile per hour winds that went on all day making it sound like someone was determined to huff and puff and blow my house down. I actually took some video of the hail, and considered sending it to CNN as an I-Report, but eh, it didn't impress me enough. Granted I've seen some massively lame things make it onto CNN, but I don't really need to add to that. Besides, once you've been in a storm with softball-size hail (I wish I had video of that one!), everything else seems piddly in comparison.
You might be wondering right now, Eliza why are you giving us a weather report? Well, it's because quite frankly I'm running out of things to say about these damn primaries. I suspect our friendly punditry is also suffering from this problem, which would account for the sporadic bouts of retardness. I probably only watched half the coverage-if that, but when watching Anderson Cooper's panel, did anyone else find themselves distracted by the big frickin plane behind them? Do all presidential libraries have planes (provided of course that there were planes at the time) or is Reagan just special? You know, with him being one rung below Jesus and all--at least according to conservatives. I guess tomorrow night the candidates will be tripping over each other to prove that they are in fact the most Reagany. Reagantastic? Reaganiferic? Submit your own!
So anyway, the night came to a close with a real win for McCain, a symbolic win for Clinton, and one sad little man by the name of Rudy Giuliani quietly crying in the corner. I almost even feel sorry for the guy (I said almost, let's not get crazy). His campaign was nearly more pathetic than Fred Thompson's and that's saying something. As we all know, the Giuliani plan was to tell all the other states to suck it and then clean up in Florida, which, obviously, didn't happen. Mr. 9-11 was also counting on being able to scare everyone into voting for him, but I think the sucky economy came to bite him in the butt by way of monopolizing the news cycle and pushing terrorism into the background. Both horrible strategies. Sorry, Rudy. Thanks for playing. As for the republican winner, it was a tight race between two creepy smilers, but McCain eventually emerged victorious (and if reporting is correct, will soon be picking up a Giuliani endorsement). I was kinda hoping it would be Romney. I'm fairly confident both democratic front runners can beat Romney. McCain? I'm not so sure. But believe it or not, it's still early, and Super Tuesday can change the story all over again.
On the other side of the aisle, Clinton's win wasn't near as newsworthy. Due to the Florida state party being stupid, or the democratic national party being mean, or both, or something that I don't understand, Clinton will go home with no delegates. So essentially the win doesn't really count, but she was all "yay me!" anyway. And, hey, good for her. And speaking of Clinton, today it seems there was a mini uproar on the 360 blog regarding a perceived pro-Obama/anti-Clinton bias. Usually I don't read that many comments, but since it still has that fresh new blog smell, I've been perusing a little longer these past couple of days and was surprised to see so many people angry at 360/CNN's coverage. It's kind of ironic that the channel the right-wing lovingly anointed the "Clinton News Network" is now being accused of having an anti-Clinton bias, but here we are. I'm not really sure what to think. I've never been one to see an ideological bias in the news (excepting of course Fox News) for ideology sake--though sometimes the very real bias to their corporate ownership can manifest itself as conservative bias.
There are biases sure, but I think sometimes people see partisanship when the true culprit is simple laziness or the desire for sensation...you get the picture. And while it's true that some--even a lot--of the campaign coverage has been unbelievably stupid (and I believe I've pointed out some of those instances on this blog--Clinton almost-crying coverage, for example), it didn't occur to me to think that the network as a whole had any kind of agenda. So tonight I decided to watch closer and the first thing that caught my eye was that they cut Clinton's speech off. To be honest, I didn't watch any of the other speeches. Maybe they did that to McCain too, I don't know. What I do know is that if Obama had given a victory speech, I really doubt they would have cut it off. Does that mean I think there's some kind of anti-Clinton thing going on at CNN? No, not necessarily. But it does mean I'll be watching closer now. Because I'm probably going to be undecided up until the minute before I vote on Super Tuesday and I want to make sure I go into that booth undistorted.
Some randomness: Tonight I wanted to strangle Huckabee (note to government lurkers: uh, just kidding). Why? Because he continuously called my state Missourah. It's like nails on a chalkboard, people. And, and, he did it while he was in Creve Coeur, which is a St. Louis suburb. Not smart. Anyway, you might be laughing at me and my pet peeve, but that seriously annoys people here. It's okay though. Later in the broadcast, John King made me feel better by saying it the right way. Thanks, John! Another piece of randomness is that I totally cracked up when Bill Bennett simply sincerely asked if Ron Paul would be in the debate tomorrow. I don't even know why it made me laugh, but I think it's because Paul has become like the crazy uncle that everyone has to invite out of obligation and just kind of puts up with. Also? Of course Ron Paul is going to be there. Ron Paul is everywhere! Or at least his supporters.
The other day when I was complaining to 360 about their missing "Blog From the Back Row" (which has since returned-yay!), it occurred to me that I basically stopped doing "News You Might Have Missed" posts with no explanation. I think my new strategy will be just to not make any promises. It's not like you haven't missed news; I'm just missing time to do those posts. So I'll try to do it sometimes--or at least when there's something big. Besides, the 360 "Morning Buzz" ain't too shabby now is it? But I do have something for you today. Have you ever wondered just exactly how many lies we were told during the run-up to the Iraq war? Well, it turns out somebody counted. According to the Center for Public Integrity, the magic number is 935. My first reaction? Seems a little low. But anyone who feared this stuff would quietly slip down the memory hole can now breath a little easier. There's even a searchable database! A searchable database of lies. The idea of that should probably make me sad, but I'm just happy to have the tool. Oh, and speaking of lies, Think Progress, has been in a fact checking tizzy regarding Bush's SOTU address, if anyone is interested. Finally, for some comic relief, we have the Daily Show and Colbert Report writers in a mock WGA debate:
You might be wondering right now, Eliza why are you giving us a weather report? Well, it's because quite frankly I'm running out of things to say about these damn primaries. I suspect our friendly punditry is also suffering from this problem, which would account for the sporadic bouts of retardness. I probably only watched half the coverage-if that, but when watching Anderson Cooper's panel, did anyone else find themselves distracted by the big frickin plane behind them? Do all presidential libraries have planes (provided of course that there were planes at the time) or is Reagan just special? You know, with him being one rung below Jesus and all--at least according to conservatives. I guess tomorrow night the candidates will be tripping over each other to prove that they are in fact the most Reagany. Reagantastic? Reaganiferic? Submit your own!
So anyway, the night came to a close with a real win for McCain, a symbolic win for Clinton, and one sad little man by the name of Rudy Giuliani quietly crying in the corner. I almost even feel sorry for the guy (I said almost, let's not get crazy). His campaign was nearly more pathetic than Fred Thompson's and that's saying something. As we all know, the Giuliani plan was to tell all the other states to suck it and then clean up in Florida, which, obviously, didn't happen. Mr. 9-11 was also counting on being able to scare everyone into voting for him, but I think the sucky economy came to bite him in the butt by way of monopolizing the news cycle and pushing terrorism into the background. Both horrible strategies. Sorry, Rudy. Thanks for playing. As for the republican winner, it was a tight race between two creepy smilers, but McCain eventually emerged victorious (and if reporting is correct, will soon be picking up a Giuliani endorsement). I was kinda hoping it would be Romney. I'm fairly confident both democratic front runners can beat Romney. McCain? I'm not so sure. But believe it or not, it's still early, and Super Tuesday can change the story all over again.
On the other side of the aisle, Clinton's win wasn't near as newsworthy. Due to the Florida state party being stupid, or the democratic national party being mean, or both, or something that I don't understand, Clinton will go home with no delegates. So essentially the win doesn't really count, but she was all "yay me!" anyway. And, hey, good for her. And speaking of Clinton, today it seems there was a mini uproar on the 360 blog regarding a perceived pro-Obama/anti-Clinton bias. Usually I don't read that many comments, but since it still has that fresh new blog smell, I've been perusing a little longer these past couple of days and was surprised to see so many people angry at 360/CNN's coverage. It's kind of ironic that the channel the right-wing lovingly anointed the "Clinton News Network" is now being accused of having an anti-Clinton bias, but here we are. I'm not really sure what to think. I've never been one to see an ideological bias in the news (excepting of course Fox News) for ideology sake--though sometimes the very real bias to their corporate ownership can manifest itself as conservative bias.
There are biases sure, but I think sometimes people see partisanship when the true culprit is simple laziness or the desire for sensation...you get the picture. And while it's true that some--even a lot--of the campaign coverage has been unbelievably stupid (and I believe I've pointed out some of those instances on this blog--Clinton almost-crying coverage, for example), it didn't occur to me to think that the network as a whole had any kind of agenda. So tonight I decided to watch closer and the first thing that caught my eye was that they cut Clinton's speech off. To be honest, I didn't watch any of the other speeches. Maybe they did that to McCain too, I don't know. What I do know is that if Obama had given a victory speech, I really doubt they would have cut it off. Does that mean I think there's some kind of anti-Clinton thing going on at CNN? No, not necessarily. But it does mean I'll be watching closer now. Because I'm probably going to be undecided up until the minute before I vote on Super Tuesday and I want to make sure I go into that booth undistorted.
Some randomness: Tonight I wanted to strangle Huckabee (note to government lurkers: uh, just kidding). Why? Because he continuously called my state Missourah. It's like nails on a chalkboard, people. And, and, he did it while he was in Creve Coeur, which is a St. Louis suburb. Not smart. Anyway, you might be laughing at me and my pet peeve, but that seriously annoys people here. It's okay though. Later in the broadcast, John King made me feel better by saying it the right way. Thanks, John! Another piece of randomness is that I totally cracked up when Bill Bennett simply sincerely asked if Ron Paul would be in the debate tomorrow. I don't even know why it made me laugh, but I think it's because Paul has become like the crazy uncle that everyone has to invite out of obligation and just kind of puts up with. Also? Of course Ron Paul is going to be there. Ron Paul is everywhere! Or at least his supporters.
The other day when I was complaining to 360 about their missing "Blog From the Back Row" (which has since returned-yay!), it occurred to me that I basically stopped doing "News You Might Have Missed" posts with no explanation. I think my new strategy will be just to not make any promises. It's not like you haven't missed news; I'm just missing time to do those posts. So I'll try to do it sometimes--or at least when there's something big. Besides, the 360 "Morning Buzz" ain't too shabby now is it? But I do have something for you today. Have you ever wondered just exactly how many lies we were told during the run-up to the Iraq war? Well, it turns out somebody counted. According to the Center for Public Integrity, the magic number is 935. My first reaction? Seems a little low. But anyone who feared this stuff would quietly slip down the memory hole can now breath a little easier. There's even a searchable database! A searchable database of lies. The idea of that should probably make me sad, but I'm just happy to have the tool. Oh, and speaking of lies, Think Progress, has been in a fact checking tizzy regarding Bush's SOTU address, if anyone is interested. Finally, for some comic relief, we have the Daily Show and Colbert Report writers in a mock WGA debate:
posted by eliza at 12:16 AM
3 Comments:
I don't know if CNN is showing an anti-Clinton/pro-Obama bias but I assumed the reason CNN cut off Hillary's speech is that not only does Florida not count, but also she wasn't supposed to be there. She promised, as all the Democratic candidates promised, to not campaign there. So, Obama stayed away, giving up his chance to increase his low name recognition and Clinton went there and campaigned anyway, increasing her already-high name recognition. That being the case, I don't blame CNN for limiting her coverage.
I think she's brilliant but wish she had kept her promise. I'm from South Carolina where she and Bill just spent a week race-baiting (arguably), so I might be a bit sensitive about her tactics.
By the way, I'm grew up Missouri and smile whenever you mention "Missourah." Bothers me, too.
-Lori
@anonymous-Did she really campaign though? I thought she just did fundraisers, which was okay per the rules. I agree about the race-baiting.
By the way, I'm grew up Missouri and smile whenever you mention "Missourah." Bothers me, too.
Thank you! It annoys the hell out of me.
It's reverse psychology -- CNN, Anderson Cooper and his ilk are BLATANTLY pro-Clinton); they are trying to dissemble this reality by suggesting the reverse.
Like most media, they think the general public are stupid, and that they will get away with their not-so-clever deception. WRONG.
Further attempts at manipulation from the Clinton camp -- that's what she and her campaign is all about -- try to win at all costs, even if it means lying to the electorate.
The sweet irony is that all the Clinton attempts at manipulation are going favor Obama's -- people resent being deceived, and that resentment will translate in to more votes for honest Obama.
Also of interest, compare the delegate numbers shown on CNNs website to that shown on NPRs website.
Post a Comment
<< Home