This clarifies what is happening with the MSM as well as I have ever seen. Now if more of middle America can be exposed to this reality the MSM/DNC game will be over.
Olbermann is a hack, a toady and a major tool.
Good post. Thank you for speaking the truth although it be unpopular. I was an avid viewer of Meet The Press and have seen Russert's bias. You are right to claim that a casual viewer may not detect the bias as it was not apparent every week.
I will be posting your link later this week in response to my liberal friends. You have made some very good points.
-Bill Burress
The use of the word "historic" to describe this election does not only have one meaning. This was bound to be an historic election because the Democratic Party candidate was going to be either a woman or an African-American, both of which would be "historic" events. Therefore, Russert was absolutely justified in using that term because, regardless of the outcome, he would be right. Those are the facts, and they cannot be disputed. As Tim Russert was known to say, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
I have learned long ago that when there are two possible interpretations of some MSM/DNC spin, the MSM/DNC intends the meaning that most likely will advance its own agenda. "Historic" is one of those terms that the MSM/DNC can back off of when pressed, but still use to its advantage in a subtle way. If this election will be just as "historic" even if Obama loses, let the MSM/DNC say so. But it won't say that because that would defeat its purpose in using the word "historic."
Wonderful article. I am getting tired of Russert being elevated to sainthood.
Did Russert actually say, "you are not entitled to your own facts?" He felt entitled to make up the Indianapolis interview, the Kerry apology, the claim that Obama opponents were misleading readers and the claim that McClellan's book was not a "moveon.org" publication. Russert felt perfectly entitled to his own facts. Russert supplied the "facts" so that Dems could supply the arguments.
As I said before, this will be an historic election simply because there is an African American candidate in the running, and it would have been an historic election if a woman had won the nomination. Neither of these situations has occured in the history of our country, hence the historic nature of this election, regardless of who wins in November. Russert's use of the term historic never required an Obama presidency to be valid.
Rick -
So it will still be just as "historic" if Obama loses?
Salt
History has already been made simply because we have an African American nominee for president from a major party. Now, if he gets elected that will be another history-making event. My original point holds true. Russert was correct to use the word historic as it related to the nomination of either Obama or Clinton. Sadly, he did not live to see whether history will be made again in November. He was a class act, and was everything that others in his business can only aspire to be.
I knew he couldn't answer "yes" or "no."
Given that we are talking about two separate events, the nomination and the general election, there is not a simple yes or no answer. Barack Obama is the first major party African American presidential candidate in our country's history. Nothing can change that. History has already been made. Now, if he loses the general election, no, it will not be historic, because we will not have our first African American president. We will have another white president. Of course, that will be mildly historic because he will be older than any other president has ever been on his first day in office. So, regardless of who gets elected this year, it will be a historic election. Wow, as Tim Russert would say, What a country!
Once again, the MSM gets to have it both ways.
I, too, have strongly criticized the main stream media in the past. I just don't believe it's justified in this particular case.
Commenting by HaloScan
