Okay - so Hillary is a whiny bitch and Obama is a dim bulb who talks a good game. We get it. The media has made itself more important than it should be. But where else are we supposed to get information? Whatever news outlet you go to, you find the same biases and self-important analysis. Why are we all so stupid that we need an analysis? Just tell me what happened and I'll figure out what that means without the likes of Chris, Brian, Tim, et al. If I can't figure out the significance (or more usually the insignificance) of a specific event then perhaps I am not qualified to be electing a president. I am sick of so-called reporters practically salivating as they announce the latest "BREAKING NEWS" item which turns out to be something so minor and silly that if we didn't have 24 hr. news cycles would never be reported. I am supporting HIllary because, being a bitch myself, I realize how much we get done in a day.

Brian Williams: Please stop hurting America.

I watch your Evening News. What you do is not NEWS. There is a lot happening in the world but it doesn't make it on your show. Please stop with the daily "Medical Miracles" (is all your money invested in Bio Medical stocks). Use the time to report on events in China, India, Europe, o and yes . . . the Middle East.

Please hire some Arab reporters and have them report on what is occurring in the ME. It is an important topic.

Please Brian Williams. STOP HURTING AMERICA.

It was disgusting to see Russert gloating with Chris Matthews over how he, Russert, had a "gotcha" moment with Hillary. A moderator should try to illuminate, and advance the discussion, not gloat openly five minutes after the debate.
Tell me, Mr. Russert, how about asking Bush and McCain if they are finally willing to finally admit that it was wrong to vote to give Bush the power to attack Iraq? By comparison, Hillary looks pretty damn good.

Who's JS to ask? JS and his stupid line about Obama at the Oscars. Not only that but JS makes stupid one-line comments about anything foreign (to him.) JS should travel around the world for 3-5 years and learn a bit more than he does. Bring back Billy Crystal!

The feed system used on these clips SUCKS. Complete garbage.

*

Jon Stewart is such an amazingly gracious host. He makes every guest look good, even when he's digging into them a bit.

Williams and Russert = Bad journalism

Jon is SOOOO PRO Hillary. He can't stomach the whole :Yes We Canned Ham" Speech WAY TOO
SMART to drink the Kool-Aid. Love him

Geez...enough with the stupid nicknames. BriWi? Can we not be grown up and call a man his name? And really, why have this guy on? He's just the cover man for a big media company which thinks (or at least wishes) it is a candidate in the election.

Oh Jon, your young daughter will grow up one day and see the clip of you asking "what do I do with this" while we all know it was out of pure love- the truth is- women scare the beeejebus out of men. That's why we work harder- get paid less- get called a bitch when we stand up- every thing we got we got the hard way. www.politicalanmesia.blogspot.com

I don't really understand the pretense these pundits pose that they don't understand what Clinton was getting at when she talked about always going first, etc. And I'm a little disappointed in Stewart for apparently not getting it as well. The exchange that Sklar points out is interesting for more than just the BriWi shout out. Stewart says, "When she's matched against Obama on policy she seems to do very well." The problem there is no one seems to be interested in policy, or the fact that she knows her stuff and he sometimes doesn't. For that reason he does have an advantage when they ask her questions first. He'll usually repeat what she says, and then try to add some of his stumps. It's very much like being partnered with an unprepared student for a class presentation. She does all the work, and he says "yeah and also..."

These debates also never delve into the nitty gritty of real issues, but skims the surface. Whenever Clinton tries to go deeper than the surface, they usually cut her off. I"ve also noticed that he"s given more opportunities to rebut her comments. She usually has to fight for the ones she gets. And more so in the CNN debates rather that this past MSNBC debate, she"ll answer a question and the moderator will pretend that they didn"t quite understand her or she didn"t answer at all.

Speaking of Brian Williams, I"ve hesitated to bring up the following issue since it sounds"even to my ear"slightly conspiratorial. It also tends to give more credence to a network comedy show than it deserves. But, something"s been bugging me since October" the week that a certain anchorman (whose work I normally respect a great deal) hosted both a Democratic debate and NBC"s "Saturday Night Live."

This week, I"ve been reminded of my nagging feelings-- and think they may now be germane-- given the amount of talk devoted to the most recent episode of "SNL." Among the questions we"ve heard in recent days: "Was it appropriate for Tina Fey to use the b-word?"¦ "Can you believe Clinton referred to it during the debate?"¦ "Why wasn"t an African-American member of the cast assigned to play Obama?". . ."And,uh¦.who exactly is in the cast these days? Is Brad Hall still on the show?"

By comparison, very few questions were raised about the episode of "Saturday Night" hosted by none other than "BriWi" (I"m told that"s the way the cool kids say it) back in late October, despite the fact that there was an interesting confluence of events that caused me to question the integrity of both NBC and (forgive me, Brian!) even of Williams himself. Allow me to press the re-wind button on the political TiVo.

That week"s debate in Philadelphia"hosted by Williams and his scowling cohort Tim Russert" happened to be among the more contentious of the campaign. Most famously, it is the debate when Hillary Clinton stumbled on the question of drivers" licenses for undocumented immigrants. (It is perhaps worth noting that this question was asked of Sen. Clinton during what was labeled the "Lightening Round" of the debate--- a sophisticated test of forensic skills which, although it was eschewed during the Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1960, was employed by NBC during its 1980s daytime game show "Card Sharks.").

Despite the fireworks, the debate ended on a light-hearted" if slightly bizarre"note: with Williams asking Sen. Obama the following:

"Tomorrow, of course, is Halloween. You will go as what?" That was the actual question of a network anchor to a candidate for the Highest Office in the Land. (I went back to the transcript to make certain.)

Let"s now fast-forward to the "cold opening" of that week's Saturday Night Live, where Barack Obama "unmasks" himself at a Halloween party hosted by the "Clintons". Upon doing so, Obama is given the opportunity to remind people (both by unmasking himself and by delivering his earnest line: "I'm not going to change just because it's Halloween...") what a genuine guy he is.

Brian Williams did not appear in the scene, but did deliver a strong performance throughout the show, ending the broadcast with a shout-out to Obama and musical guest, Feist.

I"ve had a question since then" one which I never heard asked of Williams: It"s a variation on the Howard Baker question ("what did Brian Williams know and when did he know it?"). Did Williams know that Obama had been approached about being on the show? Did Williams know about the concept for the opening sketch? And, if so, was that question to Obama was a "set-up"...to sell the joke when it was used on the SNL broadcast?

My hope and instinct both tell me that it was not deliberate. After all, I really like Williams as a journalist. But, even if Williams is absolved of guilt for setting up the skit with his question" I have yet to hear anyone try to pry from BriWi what the hell his question to Obama was all about?

Magnifying the importance of this topic is the fact that this was no ordinary debate. I think a case can be made that this was a game-changer-- the moment when the press began taking a second look at Clinton, which then fed a spate of stories which followed in the weeks ahead.

Her complaint during this week"s debate in Texas would have been better timed if it had occurred immediately following this debate. A review of the Philly debate would show not only that she received the lion"s share of questions during that debate (few of which were introduced without Russert"s editorial commentary putting them in what he deemed their "proper" context, i.e.: "Sen. Clinton, this question goes to your integrity..."), and that many of the questions posed to other candidates (Biden in particular) were attempts to solicit comments about her. (For the record"Russert"s last question to Obama: whether he thought there is life on other planets.)

Anyway, I"d be curious to get your thoughts on this. Thanks a lot.