Rendell: Obama Coverage Was Embarrassing

Politico.com:

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell was supposed to give "closing remarks" during this afternoon's Shorenstein Center-sponsored panel discussion with all three Sunday show moderators -- NBC's Tom Brokaw, ABC's George Stephanopoulous and CBS's Bob Schieffer -- but instead, he opened up a can of worms about bias in 2008 election coverage

"Ladies and gentleman, the coverage of Barack Obama was embarrassing," said Rendell, in the ballroom at Denver's Brown Palace Hotel. "It was embarrassing."

Rendell, an ardent Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter during the primaries, now backs Obama in the general election. Brokaw and Rendell began debating campaign coverage, including the on-air comments by Lee Cowan, and when MSNBC came up, Rendell went after the cable network.

Read the whole story: Politico.com

Comments

[iLogos]

The thing is, the news shows on msnbc did have even coverage. The opinion sows are just that, they are on every network, and represent precisely the commentators view, not the station.

What Rendell is failing to give credit to is MSNBC and all the rest of the MSM who were solely responsible for Sen. Clinton having the popular belief she could still win. IT was statistically unlikely (5:1) after Super Tuesday by the end of March it was no longer just a statistical improbability but an impossibility.

The MSM wanted to extend the process as long as possible and so the narrative was created, "Sen Clinton was a fighter, Sen. Obama couldn't close the deal, Sen Obama had a Latino problem, a Blue-Collar problem, etc., etc. None of which was supported by any evidence.

It is hypocritical for Rendell to berate MSNBC for unfair coverage and not mention their role, along with the other stations role in the Clinton campaigns lifeline, and unconscionable to do so the week of the convention.

[DofG]

So the "left" has MSNBC, and the "right" has "Fixed News". It all balances out. Bias have permeated this whole election process. It's just a question of when will Americans ever learn how to discern, not truth, but those things that are plausible?

Thinking that we can only be protected by a low-standard, alpha-male president.
Thinking John McCain and the Republican Party really care about working class people.
Thinking that Obama is Muslim!
Thinking that more oil means lower gas prices!

The problem with America is that ignorance has become a commodity expressed in almost every cultural institution. However, the real problem is that these cultural pathogens that feed on this ignorance are not truly sybiotic, and will feed until they, and the host, is no more!

[vinny]

why dont we let Ed sit down... g1

[jrockbg]

Ed Rendell was right on. I don't think the MSM acted intently (with the exception of MSNBC) to hold Obama in such high regard though. But the end result was the media not asking tough questions early on and the media treating Obama like a rock star versus an admired politician. Here is how we know the media played a part in Obama's early popularity:

Obama was far ahead in every poll coming out of the primary season. Now Obama is in a virtual tie with McCain. It's simple...the MSM over-inflated the "idea" or the "image" of Obama.

Follow me here. When stocks were at record highs last year, we knew people were getting a lot more sub prime loans than normal. We also knew amatuer investors were debt leveraging themselves to buy real estate. That market activity was inflated through artificial means, in the form of debt, so things only looked better. We know the result of that artificially inflated market activity now.

Obama got an easy ride during the primaries. Everyone knows he is woefully inexperienced and the media pumped up his image so much that it literally started a movement for "Change" in Washington. Now Obama doesn't get the free ride he used to. He's had to resort to "typical" political tactics to avoid getting swift-boated and reality has started to settle in on this presidential race. Consider the results of recent polls a "market correction" for the media's artificially inflated image of Obama

[BassMent]

I've been following politics for forty years, and I can't remember a single instance where poll numbers in August were worth a damb.

But that aside, you're onto something important about the MSM. Just bear in mind the old adage; "Follow the money."

Who owns and operates the MSM? Multi-millionaires, every one of them.

Which candidate offers up an economic policy that expands the current federal tax assistance to the top 1% of income earners and extends it in perpetuity, at the expense of the working classes?

Given this economic policy, in the election of which candidate do the owners of MSM outlets hold a vested economic interest?

And given that vested interest, which candidate is going to be treated with kid gloves by the MSM, as gaffe after gaffe is swept under the rug and party platform planks that are odious to the majority of Americans are given nary a mention?

And which candidate is going to be brought down from super-celebrity to "the unknown," "inexperienced," "presumptu­ous/arroga­nt/uppity,­" etc?

[DivergentMary]

BassMent, you are absolutely correct about the MSM.

I long for the days of Walter Cronkite and Huntley-Brinkley ~~~ men who REPORTED the news, instead of 'creating it' and 'spinning it' for their multimillionaire bosses . . .

And we got by with an hour of news each evening. If something really important happened, they would 'break in' on network programming. And if that happened, you knew that it was SOMETHING BIG!

[MsYellowDog]

I have wondered for years how the average person could justify voting against his/her own interests when they voted a Rethuglican ticket...I think it's a form of mind-control that the Karl Roves of the world are expert at performing.And what is said above is too true,also.I have searched almost completely in vain over the last two years,for information that wasn't "slanted" toward the RightWing Neo-Cons...truly,it is difficult to find!!What has happened to our media,that they have all become lap-dogs to these destroyers of the Constitution?

[riley85]

Trashing Ed is not very smart. PA loves him a lot more than Obama. And I think Obama needs PA.

[Kaos911]

Don't worry people. There's a prostitute scandal in his future.

[firewmn]

Ed sounds like the old republican at a summer family reunion BBQ... Spouting the same old remarks year after year .. even the kids could recite him..

It's OLD.. He's Old and he needs to move on to get behind somebody else..

Why are dems still argueing all the way to convention no yesterdays news.. They need to loko at Nov and unite..

Go home Ed if you can't help out...!!

[oaddi]

Ed pssst She Lost. She threw the sink and it did not work. Anger will eat you a live.

[honeydiva]

Who's running against Loretta Sanchez in her district in CA....get on it!

[TXOBAMAGIRL73]

Rosie Avila is running for her seat !!

[WoodyIV]

This is crap, I like Ed, but come on. Has he watched morning joe on msnbc? Joe S. and Pat B, dogged obama from the start. HRC was the darling of everyone (democrat that is) at the beginning of the primary. No one gave BO a chance. I'll give you Keith O from about march on, and perhaps Chris M., not Dan Abrams, Not Joe S., Not Pat B. or most of their guest.

The rest of the MSM still does it's best to down play JM's gaffes and talk up BO's. What kind of question is 'Why can't BO close the deal', winning is closing the deal. It doesn't have to be a blow out.

[Cakey4814]

Hillary has her "diehard" supporters to thank when she tries her hand at a public office again and gets trounced. This is bordering on insanity now considering that the DNC is just beginning and Rendell is still whining!!

[suuzie]

The Clintons are behind Rendell, they are posturing for something, that is why she is not releasing her delegates until Thursday.

Whatever she wants Obama, dont give her s h i t, you have done enough for her and back stabbing
Bill Clinton. I believe the Clintons really had an agenda to get into the WH, this is not just personal with them, they have an agenda and I think it is corporate and revolves around the media.

The Clintons are really republicans in sheeps clothing.

[hudsuckerproxy]

Don't Rendell, Carville, Begala, Bill, and the other whiners realize that HRC will be blamed if Obama loses the election?

[BassMent]

No, I don't think they do. Or if they do, they don't seem to care.

[FLA1]

I agree that Keith Olbermann was not a Hillary Clinton fan from about March 2008 until the end of the primary, but you can't lose an election based on some pundits opinions with regard to a candidate. If you are not interested in watching MSNBC, you should change the channel. I have always believed that the FOX network gives Republican biased coverage, and I prefer not to watch the FOX network. Moreover, FOX has been responsible for some of the attacks on Barack Obama (recall in 2007, the false reporting on Barack Obama being a muslim). This is a major network who ran a story and simply didn't check its sources. The fact that so many politicians can't get past this speaks to a greater issue: you always hear politicians discuss that politics is a contact sport and it's nothing personal, but a lot of people are taking this loss personal.

[nomobull]

the question is why was he no longer a fan-could it be he didn't like the way she ran her campaign

[PensiveObserver]

Why wouldn't you watch coverage you think is biased in a direction different than you favor? How does one learn anything unless they listen to opposing, even biased views! (And everyone has a bias anyway. Everyone.)

[southernsepia]

That's it. These people have no intention of supporting the candidate.

This is not about some hissyfit from Clinton supporters that Obama has to defuse. This is supposed to be about the American people.

The MSM and these clintonites are working hand in hand to throw '08.

[ohiodem250]

It's time to make these people cry. No more kid gloves. They were never going to support Obama and it is clear, on the eve of the convention, that they won't. So. Let's enrage them. Let's anger them. Let's get personal. My personal goal is to make PumaAnn disappear from this site. I want her to register as a Republican tomorrow. There is no room for her here and we should let her know that. Why try to assuage people who will never work with you. Let's burn bridges. And let's make sure they're doused in kerosene. I don't even want people this stupid and ignorant to be in our party. I don't stand with them. I don't think they should be part of our coalition. Anyone who will vote for someone who disagrees with almost 90% of what "their" candidate says just doesn't deserve to be catered to. Here is proof why these people do not need to be massaged and coddled: Clinton's debt. A dollar from every supporter could have put it away in a few hours. Instead, she's still in debt. There are no PUMAs and it is absolutely ludicrous that a handful of covert McCain ops could hoodwink a handful of disaffected Clinton supporters and convince the media that this group is a presence. Goodbye and good riddance! Get out of our party! This is a purge!