Hillary and Obama, looking for that last 3-5% to boost them over the top in Indiana, North Carolina, and nationally, both went into the Lion's Den, also known as Fox News this past week. Immediately, the Daily Kos, HuffyPost, and MediaMatters repudiated their own candidates. The reaction was shocking, even by Leftist wingnut standards. The most fun was reading the blog respondents at the bottom of the commentary pages. Both Democratic candidates were called "turncoats", "traitors", "losers", and a lot worse.
Needless to say, I thoroughly enjoyed watching the internet feeds of both interviews (I don't get Fox here in my building). Hillary looked especially impressive, even though she and Bill O'Reilly looked like they were going to wrestle on the floor at one point.
Why are these Leftist blogs so hateful?
Do they think that the open sharing of ideas is a bad thing?
Or are they just losing control?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 25
I think that Huffington is one thing, but I am surprised by Media Matters. They should be quite impressed.
I didn't see it either. Could you possibly include a website to read about it?
If Fox weren't legitimate, why would Hillary and Obama go on it?
If Fox weren't legitimate, then why would the Leftist blogosphere be on fire over these interviews now?
The legitimacy of Fox is no longer in question. The legitimacy of the Leftist blogs are now in question. With their push for more Centrist votes, you don't see either candidate cozying up to Markos Moulitsas any more, do you?
Fox seems to have a huge footprint in the media world, and that is why Obama and Hillary were both driven to them. This is the United States of America - not the United States of Only Left Wing Constituents. Obama and Hillary had to stop taking such softball interviews like Moyers and Olbermann, and go on Fox for the tough stuff. I admire the excellent job Hillary did. Obama - not so much.
The quality of Fox's journalism, Francis? Didn't you think these were the two best interviews of the year? I did, and I think many others like me did as well. Only Fox seems willing to be confrontational................especially with Obama. The Left Wing media love affair with that guy is revolting.
You should enjoy these :
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/1/141056/8407
Notice especially the comments down below. Truly reprehensible. But isn't that what we expect from the Kossacks?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/2/16346/54247
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/2/25549/59435/956/507562
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/2/11175/28218
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/30/
hillary-clinton-takes-on_n_99524.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/27/
barack-obama-on-fox-news_n_98840.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-green/
moveon-obama-got-outfoxed_b_98995.html
And here's another from OpenLeft.com :
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=
B9687C79E3C4706479C8A8CBC5B2F054?diaryId=5457
"Bloggers who mounted the anti-Fox News campaign last year hoping to marginalize the network were dismayed by the major interviews Obama and Clinton granted the channel this week. Websites such as OpenLeft and Daily Kos were bombarded with incredulous postings."
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-foxnews2-2008may02,0,7498830.story
Francis, it just makes me laugh that the Left can be so openly naive. What a pack of rubes!
Firstly, linking to articles from the Daily KOs is like linking to articles on Gather.
Secondly, here are some excerpts from your links:
From the second link: "However, I understand why they would do this. Whether we like it or not, Fox News Channel is the highest rated. It has more viewers than CNN or MSNBC. And it has a large audience of moderate and/or independent voters, despite its far-right bias. After all, those on the far-right, including nutcases like Bill O'Reilly, have appeared on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, which has a far-left bias (although, unlike Fox, neither The Daily Show or The Colbert Report have knowingly or seriously distorted the truth or outright lied)."
The third link attacked Hillary Clinton in the same way Fox attacks. You just don't like to be outdone by lefties.
Here is the basic body of the fourth link: "But hey, no one could have predicted that Fox would use these appearances for PR purposes, right?
So there you have it. For everyone who was so sure this was brilliant, because the candidates were "reaching out," apparently we forgot that the traditional media would still have an opportunity to define for America to whom they were reaching out. Fans of the candidates assured us that it was (pick one): 1) swing voters; 2) open-minded conservatives (ha!), or; 3) people who had lost their TV remotes. But gosh darn it if the Fox PR machine hasn't schooled us all. It was populists! Which means both Clinton and Obama -- and all Democrats, by extension -- are elitists.
Well played, all around! Here's to more such 'successes!'"
This is actually a quite astute observation while being niether "crazy" nor "hateful". Fox is given their due.
The fifth and sixth links (from the Huffington Post) are practically a transcript of the O'Reilly Interview with Hillary Clinton! Nothing crazy or hateful here. Just play-by-plays and astute observations supported by video evidence of the interviews.
The seventh link also from the Huffington Post is more observations again supported by video evidence.
The eighth link is a more scholarly approach providing context of the background what people should already know about Fox based on scholarly studies. One study found that people who watched Fox News were more likely to have misconceptions about Iraq. I believe it because YOU are my evidence!
As for your quote from the LA Times here's another quote from the same article:
Does that sound like something a legitemate journalist would do?
"What makes me laugh is that you really think Fox has quality journalism"
First of all, I think I've stated this about 200 times here on Gather : I'm in Chicago and the building I live in does not get the Fox channel. So the little I've seen of Fox is when I'm out at a friend's house or out of the country. I'll tell you this though : when I was in Germany on an army base not long ago, every TV that could be on was tuned to Fox News. Apparently the troops love Fox because of its positive coverage of the military and of the mission in Iraq. I asked.
The quality issue?
From what I've seen, Fox is definitely not the normal Left-of-Center CBS Evening News I grew up with. But in those days, Walter Cronkite kept his Liberalism out of the news business. Today, no one does that. Most of the major media leans Left and they don't keep that a secret.
So in that sense, Fox News is shocking when you turn it on and see it for the first time. Favorably shocking for most of us Conservatives.
As far as news goes, it seems that the people at Fox News at least TRY to see the opposite point of view by inviting Liberal and Leftist politicians and media-types on their program consistently. You just don't see that kind of fairness practiced by Keith Olbermann, Air America, or Dan Rather (pre-Rather-Gate).
" Your articles are filled with far more hate than the ones you've linked to"
If there's anything I can't stand to watch, it is political naivete................and the Left just keeps on spewing it. Hate, Francis? No.
Disgust, loathing, and distaste for illegitimate, unsubstantiated Left Wing naybobbery? Hell yes!
I'll always speak out when I see someone espousing Socialism and acting like its a lollypop.
Keep in mind that you cannot strengthen a body without exercise and pain. What the Republicans have done consistently is weaken the American Economy by refusing to recognize the reality of work adding value, and only work.
You mention that Keith Olbermann doesn't have opposing points of view on air, but whatever, I wouldn't know. I don't watch enough of him, but he is not a News organization. He's got a show on MSNBC, the channel that fired Phil Donahue before the invasion of Iraq to cut down on anti-war sentiment. You know, the people who were right.
And what the hell is "espousing Socialism and acting like its a lollypop" supposed to mean?
OK whatever it is, I guess it excuses your hyperbole, minsinformation, and lack of research.
Hillary is not my opposition. She voted FOR the war, and has voted for the subsequent funding. I'll definitely vote for her when the time comes.
Obama, on the other hand, is a Leftist rube. You're right, I can't possibly support a Socialist like him. That would be like OK'ing his proposed income tax rates of 39-54%. Sorry, no can do.
However, I do applaud them both for coming to their senses and realizing that they needed to pander to the Right just a little bit. And we Conservatives appreciated it, even if Obama was squirming in his chair so much that it looked like he needed an industrial strength Preparation H pad.......lol.
"And what the hell is "espousing Socialism and acting like its a lollypop" supposed to mean?"
Have you been to barackobama.com lately? The guy has said he favors EVERY single program and project ever pitched to him. How would he ever pay for ANY of this stuff? So far, my research has led me to believe that even Leftist economist Paul Krugman couldn't figure out Obama's financing in his multiple NY Times articles about the topic lately. I like it when Left Wing economists can't get their numbers straight...........
What Obama wants is EVERYTHING.
How will he pay for it all? Of course, TAX THE RICH MORE is always the answer. That's the Socialism I speak of Francis.