Skip to content
Categories:

This … is CNN

Post date:
Author:

CNN continues to add to its team of political commentators, and announced five new members of the team yesterday. Atrios posted the press release, which touted the network adding “five more top political reporters and commentators to its deep bench of political contributors and analysts.”

* David Brody, senior national correspondent for the Christian Broadcasting Network. A veteran journalist of more than 20 years, Brody writes the political blog, “The Brody File.”

* Alex Castellanos, a Republican strategist and former campaign consultant for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. Castellanos is a partner in National Media Inc., a political and corporate consulting firm.

* Dana Milbank, a Washington Post staff writer and author of the thrice-weekly “Washington Sketch” column. A veteran of political coverage, he has also worked for The New Republic and The Wall Street Journal, and his latest book is Homo Politicus: The Strange and Scary Tribes That Run Our Government.

* Hilary Rosen, a Democratic strategist and currently the political director and Washington editor-at-large for HuffingtonPost.com. In a previous role, she was chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America.

* Tara Wall, deputy editorial page editor and columnist for The Washington Times. Previously, she served as director of the office of public affairs at the Administration for Children and Families, a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and as director of outreach communications for the Republican National Committee.

For those keeping score at home, that’s three conservatives — including a correspondent for a crazed televangelist who blamed 9/11 on Americans — one liberal, and Dana Milbank, who tends to skewer without ideological preferences. As Yglesias noted, “While contemplating whether this should make you laugh or cry, consider that this is actually an improvement over what we usually get.”

Let’s also consider these hires in the broader context of CNN’s recent moves.

CNN’s last major addition to its political news team was Frances Fragos Townsend, Bush’s former chief terrorism adviser, best known for misleading the media on a regular basis.

Before Townsend, CNN hired:

* Tony Snow (conservative Republican)

* J.C. Watts (conservative Republican)

* William Bennett (conservative Republican)

During its coverage of the New Hampshire primaries

, CNN even invited Ralph Reed on as a commentator, despite the fact that Reed disgraced himself in his role in the Abramoff scandal.

So, out of the last nine additions to CNN’s political team, we have one liberal: Hilary Rosen.

Not bad for a news network that conservatives used to argue is biased against them.

Comments

  • BuzzMon

    says:

    As long as they report some facts, the “conservatives” will still whine about the Liberal Media.

    Facts have a well known liberal bias, as we know…

  • phoebes in santa fe

    says:

    I’m in a rehab place in Chicago getting therapy for my broken leg sustained in London three weeks ago. Everything here is fine, EXCEPT that the in-room TV only gets CNN. I switched full-time to MSNBC two years ago – I adore Morning Joe – so watching CNN is excruciating. Bad graphics, bad anchors, and bad commentators. Only Zain Vergee and Jack Cafferty are watchable.

    I wish both would switch over to MSNBC.

    MSNBC is a good mix of liberal AND conservative. I like hearing both sides of an issue and the anchors – with the exception of Tamrin Hall, who is a complete moron with NO sense of voice modulation – are fairly good.

    Getting sprung from this place on Saturday – hopefully – and it’s back to Santa Fe, my cats, and my MSNBC. It’s about time!

  • SadOldVet

    says:

    Convince me that Hillary Rosen is anything other than a Clinton camp plant! Why is it that at least half of the ‘democrat strategists’ that the cable networks have on are Clintonistas.

    CorporatelyNiceNews has such a wonderful lineup:
    – Mrs. Dan Senor
    – Wolf ‘AIPAC’ Blitzer

    The only thing they are missing to have a complete lineup is Pat Buchanan on 4 hours a day to tell us this election is an up-or-down on Obama – the ‘different guy’.

  • danimal

    says:

    Brody ain’t so bad and was not very good at following the conservative line. You may be surprised. Of course, the main point is well-taken. In an increasingly liberal country, these corporate masters continue to stack the deck with conservative commentators. You would think they would strive to be more balanced for the sake of profit, if not a sense of duty to country and civic discourse.

    Pollyanna? I must be living in the land of sunshine and flower petals today.

  • Ken

    says:

    Dana Milbank is as big a liar as Dick Cheney.

    CNN has now admitted they are working for McCain.

    I’m shocked.

  • OkieFromMuskogee

    says:

    Hilary Rosen may answer to the name “liberal,” but she’s also the one of the architects of the Recording Industry Association of America’s “sue ’em all” strategy to combat unauthorized file-sharing and prop up the RIAA’s obsolete business model.

    Make of that what you will.

  • olo

    says:

    …* Tara Wall, deputy editorial page editor and columnist for The Washington Times.

    Adding a moonie hack from the WT is a nice touch.

  • TomB

    says:

    With the announcement of CNN’s new political commentators, it appears it is competing directly with Fox News for the conservative audience. This is a bad move for democracy, truth as well as its own business success as the only product any news organization has is credibility. Those hires will likely degrade the CNN brand. This network reached its zenith during Gulf War I but has been in slow decline since.

    I know this sounds elitist, but the dumbing down of news (focus on celebrities, sound bites, active graphics and fast paced-presentations) encourages reactive viewing rather than reflective viewing. I think conservatives were the first to realize this and packaged their messages to fit the medium; but now I think it’s evolved to where the presenting of the message drives the policy itself – reactive, emotional, simplistic…

  • Bernard HP Gilroy

    says:

    SadOldVet @ 3:

    Why is it that at least half of the ‘democrat strategists’ that the cable networks have on are Clintonistas.

    ‘Cause Hilary lost.

    Otherwise they’d be getting ready for roles in a Clinton Restoration.

  • SadOldVet

    says:

    For a corporation that has Glen Beck on their payroll and on the air multiple hours a day, how can anybody they hire further degrade CNN?

  • azportsider

    says:

    TomB, I’m not sure how a network which already employs the likes of Glenn Beck can degrade its brand any further.

  • Goldilocks

    says:

    Clearly corporate media totally lack any sense of fun. Are they so insecure in their vested interests and propaganda agenda that they can’t envisage even the entertainment value of meaningful controversy and debate? Of course, we can’t expect them to feel any sense of duty to country and civic discourse but, for their own good, what’s wrong with some decent dialog and full-spectrum coverage? Such unabashed bias belies their abject paranoia. Poor things, quaking in their jackboots.

  • Mathew

    says:

    All the more reason why people should cancel their cable subscriptions and get their news and information from other sources.

    The channels owned by GE, Faux and Time Warner have a right-wing slant, and have consistently demonstrated a bias for McCain and against Obama. While they may have some left-wing bits here and their, they are small compared to the overall right-wing tilt.

    The channels owned by GE, Faux and Time Warner do not provide news.

    The channels owned by GE, Faux and Time Warner do not provide information.

    The channels owned by GE, Faux and Time Warner largely provide only conservative spin and right-wing propaganda.

    This board has a largely left-wing view, but the readers need to be aware of the obvious – everytime you pay your cable bill, you are funding the very right-wing corporate media machine that seeks to not have Obama elected in 2008. The only thing they understand is revenue.

    Stop supporting them.

  • John R

    says:

    Didn’t Dana Millbank get the boot from Olberman for misquoting Obama? Any port in the storm for a hack I guess.

  • Lance

    says:

    Re #9.

    He got it in one. The Obamaites are working. The Clintonistas are looking for work.

    Ken, What’s wrong with Dana Milbank?

  • Aaron

    says:

    not sure if you pay attention, but MSNBC typically sets records for lowest viewership of any channel in the cable lineup. In fact, more people watch the Biography Channel than MSNBC. Maybe America collectively disagrees with socialism?

  • Stephen1947

    says:

    “In a previous role, she was chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America.” How can anyone who ever held this role possibly be construed as a liberal? The RIAA is one of the many arms of the small group of international plutocrats that wants to exercise a monopoly strangle-hold on all media – and that ain’t liberal.

  • Racer X

    says:

    What Buzz Mon said.

    As long as any facts get reported, there will be whining about the “liberal media”. Only when we have fallen all the way down the rabbit hole, then they’ll be happy.

    Or not.

  • Norm Bernstein

    says:

    I was sad to see Dana Milbank get the boot at MSNBC; I thought he was usually an objective and insightful guy. However, from what I’ve been able to piece together, he took a quote from Obama out of context, and despite given the opportunity to correct the record, refused to do so… which is apparently why he got the boot.

    Regardless, his book ‘Homo Politicus’ was delightful reading.

  • stormskie

    says:

    Right and put this in the context of Brian Williams , Charles Gibson, and Katie Couric .. NBC, CBS, AND ABC which are all REPIGLICANS .. ALL OF THEM. The presidential debates will be ‘moderated’ by all Repiglicans .. every one of them. Every ‘debate’ between the Dems who were running for presidents, all of those debates, were ‘moderated’ by Repiglicans ..all except one .. which was moderated by Keith Oberman. All the corporate pimps/ pundits on the cable channels are Repiglicans excpet Oberman. All. Yet the country itself now only has 29 percent calling themselves Repiglicans. Yet the Corporations and the Media that they own are DETERMINED TO SHOVE DOWN OUR THROATS the propaganda parading as ‘narratives, which are wholly concocted by the Corporations themselves in order to advance the Corporate Agenda, meaning the bottom line of PROFITS FOR THEM THAT THEN AUTOMATICALLY CANCELS THE FOCUS ON THE ‘COMMON GOOD’ because of the need for yet more profits for the CORPORATIONS, despite the vast majority of the country that rejects the REPIGLICANS/ CORPORATIONS THEMSELVES: 80 PERCENT OF THE COUNTRY SAYS WE ARE GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION, the very directions dictated by the Corporations/ repiglicans themselves. In other words they don’t give a shit.

  • ericfree

    says:

    Could you please point out the liberal again? The RIAA is actively hated among Gen X and younger voters for their campaign against file exchange and downloading. Milbank disgraced himself, first last fall with his baseless attacks on John Edwards that went largely unnoticed, then recently with the same treatment of Obama. A clever and perceptive writer who’s trying a little too hard to go with what he feels as the flow.

    Apart from Cafferty, kept isolated in his own little booth, CNN’s only commentator worth a damn is Donna Brazile. Looks like we’ll be getting our news from Olbermann and the Daily Show. A neoOrwell situation, or maybe V: to take and keep power, restrict the flow of information, then tell us what we’re supposed to think.

  • ericfree

    says:

    Then again, I turned on Howard Kurtz Sunday morning to find him talking about Obama’s arrogance and “otherness.” He went to his first talking head, Joan Walsh of Salon, who, after nearly a year of smearing Obama, said “I don’t know how all of this got started.” For the rebuttal he pulled in Amy Holmes, and I put on a movie. “Adventurous Blonde” with Glenda Farrell.

  • Dr Zaius

    says:

    Someone else from The Washington Times? We’ve been busting on Fox for being Republican talking point “opinion media”. Why is no one busting the Times for not being legit?

  • olo

    says:

    @ 21. On August 14th, 2008 at 11:41 am, stormskie said:

    a number of good things but,

    I have difficulty reading SCREAMING, and,

    Paragraphs are a great device for organizing thoughts.

  • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

    says:

    Phoebes: Glad to hear you’re getting better, but hurry back to your cats, I know they’ve been missing you — and don’t panic when they take a few hours snubbing you for leaving you, they’ll be as lovable as ever soon. (This message was dictated to me by Tiki aka Mystique, one of my four.)

    On topic now, CNN started going downhill when Ted Turner sold it, but the slope is now at 45 degrees. Milbank will be nastier than ever, and the idea of a WashTimes guy just stops me. I think the election will turn things around a bit — I hope — because, despite stormskies’ rant — there is a tendency to ‘conform to the latest Administration. (And, btw, Castellanos is not that bad for a Republican.)

  • Aaron

    says:

    Also, the entire point of the existence of America and the Bill of Rights is that the individual is more important than the collective. Remember that the Constitution as written was, at the time, thought to give far too much power to the new government and would never have been even sent to the states for ratification without the explicit promise of the Bill of Rights. Which provides a nice opportunity to remind everyone that the choice of method for amending the constitution shows that the intent was for the federal government to derive its power from the states, and act only as the states approved, not the other way around.

    Amendment Ten

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Amendment One

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Amendment Two

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Amendment Three

    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    Amendment Four

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Amendment Five

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Amendment Six

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    Amendment Seven

    In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Amendment Eight

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Amendment Nine

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment Ten

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  • Franklin

    says:

    Wasn’t Dana Milbank the one who took one sentence from Obama completely out of context to portray him as being arrogant, when in fact a fuller quote would have revealed that he was saying the exact OPPOSITE of what she was accusing him of?

  • Patrick

    says:

    The only good news nowadays is MSNBC. Keith Olbermann is awesome. It was painful to hear him bash Hillary in the primaries, but I have forgiven him now. There is nowhere else to go.

  • jhm

    says:

    I agree with danimal @4. Of all the new designated conservatives, I was surprised to be least offended by Mr. Brody. I can’t think of much on which we would agree, but at least one can follow his arguments, and his every statement isn’t transparently partisan.

    The larger issue is that the “conservaitves” are almost always represented by the far right, and they accompany the likes of Mr. Cafferty, who has yet to offer one solution to add to his constant griping, and maybe someone who more than likely can only manage to regurgitate campaign boilerplate. Would it be too much to ask that once and a while an actual liberal be present? I’m net even talking about a Progressive, just someone sane.

  • Diogenes

    says:

    @6
    Yeah, the token “liberal” is the former representative of that bastion of free and open information, the RIAA. Hmm…It’s almost as if they found the least palatable “liberal” they could in order to have a token representative, and Joe Lieberman happened to be unavailable. 🙂

    Look, this is all an attempt by CNN to fight off it’s “Communist News Network” image with the conservatives. O’Reilly et al pull huge ratings. Yeah, Olbermann isn’t doing too bad, but Bill is still king of the heap there. It’s sort of like the two party system: where else are you going to go? Fox?

  • Linda in Oregon

    says:

    Franklin # 28 – You’ve got it exactly right. Olbermann requested he come on with a correction, Dana didn’t, end of story. That makes Keith Olbermann the only one I know of who expects honesty and accountability.

    And, as an earlier commenter said, I get my news from Olbermann and the Daily Show. And, I enjoy Cafferty if I turn on TV while eating lunch………. but can hardly stand Wolfie anymore.

    I remember when news was just that. Now it’s “Newsertainment” and the viewer is left to decide what slant they’re hearing.

  • lib4

    says:

    Surprisingly Brody and Casstellanos are ok.
    They are cons but fair to a degree.
    They dont parrot the company line hook line and sinker

    That still doesnt excuse the lack of a true liberal voice being hired by the “communist News Network” as they are fondly called on Con Sites

  • ericfree

    says:

    #27, thanks for the long, well thought out post, I don’t think any of us have read that before. Let’s see, 1 and 4 are out the window, and the ghost of Charlton Heston tells us that 2 trumps the other 7, so… what’s your point? Weren’t you the one who was telling us a few weeks ago you have the Consitutional right to set your thermostat at 68 in summer and 78 in winter? Don’t see that here, don’t agree with it, but I’ll defend your right to do it straight up until I… get tired.

    Now back to the original topic. I don’t think hiring any of these bozos has anything to do with free speech, rather the reverse.

    And while I’m back, felt guilty for omitting Jeffrey Toobin from the increasingly short list of responsible CNN commentators. Not sure, but didn’t I see James Carville and Bill Bennett talking about the Corso book yesterday? And isn’t Carville’s wife Mary Matalin the editor responsible for its publication? Isn’t incest illegal outside the Beltway?

  • Aaron

    says:

    The focus of the post was Number Ten, which basically says that if the Constituion does not give authorization in an area explicitly to the Federal gov’t, that means it is reserved for the states or the people to decide. But since I posted them all, and you brought it up, I agree that #1 is out the window, although not technically. By that I mean that Congress has never passed a law establishing a state religion, but the courts have and continue to prohibit the free exercise of religion. ALLOWING religious displays and practices does not constitute “an establishment of religion”. And apparently many people mistake “freedom of the press” for “requirement of the press to be honest”. In regards to number four, I would argue that most people do not assert their rights in this area. I have personally told a police officer that he could not search my car or person unless he shared with me his warrant or “plain sight” probable cause, at which point the confrontation ended with him walking away. And #2 applies as equally as the other 9, which simply means that we need to protect our right to keep and bear arms with just as much diligence as we do free speech. And #4 does not apply to non-uniformed enemies, nor do the Genva Conventions (which clearly state, IN THE CONVENTIONS THEMSELVES, that in order to be protected by them you must be in uniform and identify the nation that you are fighting for).

  • ericfree

    says:

    I’ve noticed very often that the more some people think, the more the intelligence oozes away. Yes, my friends and I have said that to cops too; we got the crap beaten out of us, our houses and cars trashed, and hauled off to the slammer while the rest of the law and the media shrugged their shoulders. If you think this is history, just ask the mayor of Berwyn Heights, Maryland.http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/NewsSearch?sb=-1&st=Police%20Raid%20Berwyn%20Heights%20Mayor's%20Home

    Only the right mentions Christmas displays first when it talks about freedom of speech. The rest of us are concerned with having our views heard. Coming from the South, I agree with you on the Tenth Amendment and states’ rights, which is why I think the states should be able to legalize marijuana and gay marriage and protect the environment without having the Bush government step in. On the other hand, I got a little sick when I was growing up of hearing that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery, it was about states’ rights.

    Loved your rationalization of Bush torture at the end, though. Go stick your head back in a law book but pay attention this time. Maybe you should watch a little CNN, but only when Jeffrey Toobin’s on. Or try Jonathan Turley, MSNBC. Listening only to your neocon professors doesn’t do any of us any good. They’re one reason we are where we are, and desperately trying to work our way out.

  • joey

    says:

    It’s corporate media…owned and operated by and for corporations…what did you expect?.

    All the media in this country is owned by 6 corporations that have nothing to do with media besides ownership and censorship. If you have not googled “Operation Mockingbird” yet then you still are naive about the role of the media.

    The memes are common:
    Unions bad…corporations good
    Big government bad…Privatized government good
    Corporate taxes bad…corporatocracy good
    Government for the people good…government by and of the people bad

    This election is our last best chance to get our foot in the door to stop the destruction of our democracy. They can only steal it…not defeat it

  • JS

    says:

    Perhaps if people emailed CNN and told them that from now on they would get news from the BBC (which is what I do) I only like Cafferty! They might get the message, after all, they really don’t want to lose viewers. If they got a great drop in the ratings they might change.

  • Aaron

    says:

    ericfree –
    where did I mention Christmas displays? That part you made up by yourself. And I also did not defend or condone any specific actions, simply stated that there is no requirement to apply the Geneva conventions when they themselves specifically state they do not apply. If I were arrested in plain clothes in some other country and they had proof that I was operating there as a government agent without proper permission or uniform, the Conventions would not apply to me. That would be a risk I would have to consider before taking that career, or taking that vacation. That was my point. I think torture is disgusting. I also think that if we can save American lives in a way that is perfectly legal but the morality of it is ugly, we might have to do that on rare occasion. And I agree with your point on both state’s rights and the civil war. As to your point about the fourth amendment, there will be abuses of power under any system. It is horrible that those things have happened to you and your friends, as well as anyone else in this country. I have seen it firsthand myself. Miscairrages (sp?) of justice, however disgusting and disappointing, do not mean that the law no longer applies. Indeed, the ability to point to specific examples shows that across the board the law is followed; thus the phrase “the exception that proves the rule”. Hopefully you have been able to gain some redress against those who have wronged you.

  • ericfree

    says:

    Aaron (9, 27 &35), going to your original post, MSNBC may be behind (but gaining) in overall ratings, but they’re winning the desirable demographic wars. Viewers over 65 (and some of the most committed progressive activists I know fit into that category, although they don’t watch Fox) tend to get their news from networks and cable, while younger ones go to sites like this. That’s why Fox has so many viewers, and they’re the ones CNN, in their wisdom, is trying to steal. Meanwhile, the demographic groups advertisers want are stampeding to Olbermann, Stewart and Colbert.

    As Joey #37 points out, nothing socialist about MSNBC. That’s just one term, along with communist and fascist, used interchangeably by the right to describe those who have opinions they don’t like.

    But let’s get this over with. If you have access to history as well as law books, I’ll make one of my obervations a question: Do you believe the Civil War was caused by the Lincoln Administration’s failure to recognize states’ rights to slavery and secession?

  • ericfree

    says:

    Crossposting. Yes, I work on redress every day, but the crimes come faster than justice. Glad to hear you’re against slavery, though, if that’s what you said.

    From #35: “…I agree that #1 is out the window, although not technically. By that I mean that Congress has never passed a law establishing a state religion, but the courts have and continue to prohibit the free exercise of religion. ALLOWING religious displays and practices does not constitute “an establishment of religion”.” Since that’s first in your comment on the First Amendment, I assume it’s most on your mind. It’s the right’s hysterical substitute for a real discussion of freedom of speech.

    Don’t see what any of your postings have to do with subject of this thread though, other than to say the networks have the right to hire anyone they want. They do, and we have the right to trash them for not serving their viewers, whom polls show are far to their left, although far short of “socialist,” and to lament the declining number of responsible media outlets.

  • ericfree

    says:

    On “the exception proves the rule:” This is one of those phrases, like “form follows function,” that seems to change depending on the intent of the user. Some have said that “exception” is the operative word, that the exception to a rule validates its overall accuracy. Others go with “prove,” meaning “test” in its original 17th Century form.

    The easiest way to think of it is the bird rule. The phrase “All birds can fly” is “proved,” that is rendered useless, if I introduce you to my pet penguin. Thus, miscarriages of justices are not the “exceptions” that “prove” the accuracy of the “rule” of justice. They make a mockery of it. Until they are corrected, there is no justice.

    Which is why Mukasey’s legal opinion on fraudulent Justice Dept. hirings this week, and the Washington Post’s justification of it today, “prove” the rule of justice in this country to be somewhat lacking. And why we need to start an impeachment list….

  • Aaron

    says:

    First of all, the causes of the Civil War cannot be addressed in one question, so no. I do not, at this moment, have access to any books (I am at work, writing in between tasks). I think allowing secssion would have been an interesting option: at what point would slavery have been ended anyway? And was it worth it to speed up the end of slavery?

    As to the specifics of your question: the 10th amendment would say that since the Constitution does not grant the government authority on those issues, they are left to the states. Secession is a little trickier; is opting out once ratified an option under the Constitution? The fact is that the South seceeded because they were going to be outnumbered in terms of slave vs. free states. The majority would have pushed for federal authority over the issue, and it would have ended up being banned. So instead of being a minority, they chose to leave. I would say that the Lincoln administration, complicit with Congress, probably sped up an inevitability, more than caused an unnecessary conflict.

    None of this changes the fact that Olbermann pulls a 0.3 in the Nielsens, and MSNBC runs ads that DirecTV’s The 101 would be embarrased to have to air.

  • ericfree

    says:

    You’re not working in the Bush Justice Department by any chance, are you? In that case, you’ve got plenty of time.

    “I think allowing secssion would have been an interesting option: at what point would slavery have been ended anyway? And was it worth it to speed up the end of slavery?”

    Considering the history of the last 150 years, I’d say never. But why don’t you ask the children of the slaves, of those who fought to free them, and those of all races who spent the next 100 years fighting Jim Crow and lynch laws and still fight the descendents of those responsible for them? I’d like to be there when you do.

  • doubtful

    says:

    I’m in a rehab place in Chicago getting therapy for my broken leg sustained in London three weeks ago. Everything here is fine, EXCEPT that the in-room TV only gets CNN. -phoebes in santa fe

    Have someone bring you a good ol’ radio and tune it to 820 on the AM dial, WCPT.

    Hope you’re recovery is going well!

    It was painful to hear him bash Hillary in the primaries, but I have forgiven him now. -Patrick

    Truth hurts, eh? He was to Hillary as he is to all he comments on: fair and truthful.

  • olo

    says:

    the problem with the 10th amendment is that the Supreme Court seems from it’s decisions, rarely if ever to have used it, or even read it.
    The other 2 branches only invoke it obliquely & always for sinister political tricks.

  • MaBelle

    says:

    Wake me when the blogosphere wants to get truly serious about real journalism. That’s when I’ll know you’re actually making a difference instead of keeping score of the number of liberals vs. conservatives the MSM hires and uses as political analysts.

    The way it stands at the moment, we — the readers — have two choices: MSM, which is predominantly corporate controlled, and the blogosphere, which is (seemingly) run by people pretending to be adults, who can do little else but tilt reporting and coverage to the left and emit nothing but snarks and cynicism about any other form of media.