Whiner-in-Chief

The Obama administration really needs to get over itself.

First, the president and his aides go to war with Fox News because the network maintains a generally anti-Obama slant.

Then, an anonymous administration aide attacks bloggers for failing to maintain a sufficiently pro-Obama slant.

These are not disconnected developments.

An administration that won the White House with an almost always on-message campaign and generally friendly coverage from old and new media is now frustrated by its inability to control the debate and get the coverage it wants.

But before the president and his inner circle go all Spiro Agnew on us, they might want to consider three fundamental facts regarding relations between the executive branch and the fourth estate:

1. Since the founding of the republic, media outlets (the founders dismissed them as "damnable periodicals") have been partisan.

White House communications director Anita Dunn was not exactly breaking news when she told CNN's "Reliable Sources" that Fox was neither fair nor balanced. "What I think is fair to say about Fox -- and certainly it's the way we view it -- is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party," grumbled Dunn. "They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."

Fox hosts do go overboard in their savaging of Obama and the Democrats -- sometimes ridiculously so. But their assaults on the president are gentle when compared with the battering that Benjamin Franklin Bache's Philadelphia Aurora administered to John Adams (appropriately) or the trashing that Colonel McCormick's Chicago Tribune gave Franklin Roosevelt (inappropriately).

To suggest that Fox is not a news network simply because Sean Hannity echoes RNC talking points would be like suggesting that the Aurora was not a newspaper because it took cues from Tom Jefferson or that the Tribune was not a legitimate member of the fourth estate because it was sweet on Alf Landon.

2. Presidents are supposed to rise above their own partisanship and engage with a wide range of media -- even outlets that are hard on their administrations.

In fact, presidents should go out of their way to accept invites from media that can be expected to poke, prod and pester them. The willingness to take the hits suggests that a commander-in-chief is not afraid to engage with his critics. It also reminds presidents, who tend to be cloistered, that there are a lot of Americans who get their information from sources that do not buy what the White House press office is selling.

When Dick Cheney kept giving "exclusive" interviews to Fox "personalities," there were those of us who ridiculed both the personalities and the former vice president for going through the ridiculous exercise of lobbing softballs and swinging at them.

Obama should be better than Cheney. But aides are not helping the president prevail in what ought to be an easy competition.

Cheney saw newspapers such as The New York Times and news channels such as CNN as little more than branches of his Democratic opposition.

When Dunn was asked whether the president refused to accept interview requests from Fox because the White House sees the network as "a wing of the Republican party," the communications director responded: "Is this why he did not appear? The answer is yes."

That is such a radically wrong response that it calls into question the whole communications strategy of an administration that has somehow managed to take a man who was elected with a mandate and lodge him in a corner where there are now serious questions about whether a Democratic president and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress can enact basic elements of the Democratic agenda.

Obama should sit down with Fox reporters and anchors and do interviews. That does not mean that the president has to put up with the emotional wreckage that is Glenn Beck. But there is no reason why he shouldn't go another round with Bill O'Reilly (as Obama did during the 2008 campaign) or sit down with Chris Wallace (as Bill Clinton did).

If the Fox interviewers are absurdly unfair, the American people will respond with appropriate consternation. On the other hand, if they are aggressive and pointed in their challenges, Obama will rise or fall on the quality of his responses. His aides, if they have any faith in their man's abilities, should bend over backwards to accept some Fox interviews. They should also accept an invite from PBS' Bill Moyers, who would pose tougher – and, yes, more informed -- questions than the Foxbots.

3. The worst mistake a president or his administration can make is to try and "whip" relatively like-minded writers and reporters into line.

Yet, that appears to be what the Obama team was trying to do with the silly "policing action" of having a White House "adviser," speaking on condition of anonymity, encourage liberal bloggers to "take off their pajamas" and get serious about politics. On Sunday, when gay rights marchers challenged the Obama administration to make real the equality rhetoric of the president, NBC White House correspondent John Harwood:

For a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn't take this opposition, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off their pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely-divided country is complicated and difficult.

Harwood told Huffington Post:

My comments quoting an Obama adviser about liberal bloggers/pajamas weren't about the LGBT community or the marchers. They referred more broadly to those grumbling on the left about an array of issues in addition to gay rights, including the war in Afghanistan and health care and Guantanamo -- and whether all that added up to trouble with Obama's liberal base...

The bloggers took offense. The White House tried to "disassociate" itself from the comment. But that's standard operating procedure: toss the bomb and then avoid the fallout.

The bloggers shouldn't be worried.

They should take the criticism as a compliment -- as Fox's ratings show, White House griping harms the White House more than it does the target of the complaint.

The bloggers should also take the criticism as confirmation that they are right when they suggest that this administration is increasingly out of touch with the progressive base that secured Obama the Democratic nomination and ultimately propelled him to the White House.

The fact is that the results of the 2008 election did not reveal "a closely-divided country." Obama arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the most muscular mandate accorded any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslide.

The bloggers are right when they argue that the Obama administration can and should be doing more with that mandate.

As for the Obama administration, whether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing -- no attack by Glenn Beck, no blogger busting about Guantanamo -- does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief.

Comments (205)

1. nichols forgot to mention that the white house disassociated itself with the comments of that anonymous white house aid.

   and harwood shouldn't have reported anything from an anonymous source on an issue as significant as this.

   Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 7:32pm

2. but otherwise, i completely agree with nichols on this issue. the white house needs to open up as many avenues as possible, with the public, right now. and fox news has a huge base which needs to be reached.

   but, i don't think hannity or beck or o'reilly would be the appropriate people to interview.

   Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 7:34pm

3. but otherwise, i completely agree with nichols on this issue. the white house needs to open up as many avenues as possible, with the public, right now. and fox news has a huge base which needs to be reached.

   but, i don't think hannity or beck or o'reilly would be the appropriate people to interview.

   Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 7:34pm

   Should we go with Darla "A" or Darla "B"?

   From Ari Melber's blog

   <why should the whitehouse worry about what fox viewers think?

   to intelligent people, it's obvious what fox news represents.

   and this communications director merely told the truth.

   i want more democrats playing hard ball, and making the right wing look like the wingnuts that they are.

   Posted by darladoon at 10/11/2009 @ 11:26pm>

   Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 7:46pm

4. as any intelligent person could find out for himself or herself, my positions on fox news aren't contradictory, although antisocialist would like you to believe otherwise.

   to claim that the democrats should say fox new is an appendage of the GOP in no way contradicts my belief that the democrats should appear on fox news.

   the two positions aren't untenable, as any clear-thinking person can see.

   it's like saying, "i think mcdonald's food sucks, but i'm hungry, nothing else is open, and i could use a bite to eat right now"

   Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 7:56pm

5. in other words, to say A = A, does not necessarily mean that you should avoid all contact with A.

   fox news are an arm of the GOP. shocker!

   where have i claimed that the democrats should, in all cases, avoid fox news?

   Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 8:00pm

6. Should we go with Darla "A" or Darla "B"?

   Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 7:46pm

   Most of the time, she is very clearly, a mixture of "A" and "B", a haze of mumble jumble....LOL!

   Could Nichols be separating himself from the Kool-aid loving Jonestown crowd?

   Posted by Happy at 10/12/2009 @ 8:19pm

7. BTW, Johny Nichols, since you penned the "Obama's Campaign Merits a Peace Prize" , I'd suggest your nominating him for the Nobel Prize for Whining!

   Posted by Happy at 10/12/2009 @ 8:25pm

8. "Most of the time, she is very clearly, a mixture of "A" and "B", a haze of mumble jumble....LOL!"

   don't even bother trying to think, happy, just rely on antisocialist's point of view: you know, the guy who claimed that anthropology was a "worthless area of study" because it doesn't bring "man closer to god", even though, everything we know about our ancestors came from that mode of scientific inquiry (and that i even have to say this is even more proof of how utterly anti-intellectual antisocialist is).

   Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 8:26pm

9. Mr. Nichols, It's bloody improper to write as you do:

   First, the president and his aides decide to "go to war" against Fox News

   What did you do with your sense of legitimate, honest, proper form - leave it at one end of the house, dash to the other, and type this opener before it caught back up with you?

   This is pedestrian MSM trickery. Create a straw man, then echo chamber echo chamber echo chamber echo chamber . . .

   There's NOTHING to the CLAIMED QUOTE. You can't justify the otherwise reasoned arguments you make with this bait n switch.

   And, sir, atop this, are you not a little queasy to be so cheesy as to actually break out the 'war' word for a false quote?

   If I am wrong, I'll apologize. If I am not, might you?

   Posted by winyahn at 10/12/2009 @ 8:36pm

10. my lord, we whine about whining when:

    "Researchers used ocean sediments to plot CO2 levels back 20 million years.

    Levels similar to those now commonly regarded as adequate to tackle climate change were associated with sea levels 25-40m (80-130 ft) higher than today."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 8:42pm

11. Mr. Nichols,

    If there is one thing you can be sure, Obama is not a whiner. Winner YES, Whiner NO. He has stood up to all the crazy criticisms of the "dumb like a fox" wing nuts from death panels, to birthers, to pulling the plug on grandma, to Obama is a racist.

    If Obama goes on Fox, what makes you think the foxes won't ask bogus questions about bogus issues that will make good republican tv? What good will it do to roll in the mud with the likes of Glen Beck? Maybe Glen would throw a pie in Obama's face and say "How Sweet?", or get Tom Delay on to pound him for an hour to produce his birth certificate? Yeh, good idea? NOT.

    Why not suggest he debates Sarah? Won't that be great for Democrats? NOT. How about an interview with Rush Limburger? Will Obama come out smelling like a rose or that god-awful cheese eater? Hand out the crackers and anchovies!

    Hey, then again, whine goes good with cheese :) ... I would love to see Mr. Limburger tell Obama to his face, that he wants him to fail. I want to see Obama look him in the eye and tell him that he is a sad sad man if he wants his president and country to fail. I want the Big O to tell the cheese man about all the great social, economic and military things that Democrats like FDR have done over the past several decades, and then proceed to debate him on each and every one of his false claims that he makes on a daily basis. In case you didn't know it, Mr. Limburger has very poor debating skills.

    After that Obama can challenge any one of these "talk is cheap" Negative Clowns, Stooges and Sheep to say one good thing about Obama and the Democratic party which has built Social Security, Medicare and many other great social programs that have been quoted by Chuck Grassley as the "Social Fabric of America."

    Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 10/12/2009 @ 8:44pm

12. Honeymoon Over?

    Posted by OneVote at 10/12/2009 @ 8:50pm

13. all he is saying is give piece a chance:

    "ISLAMABAD -- The U.S. is embarking on a $1 billion crash program to expand its diplomatic presence in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan, another sign that the Obama administration is making a costly, long-term commitment to war-torn South Asia, U.S. officials said Wednesday.

    The White House has asked Congress for -- and seems likely to receive -- $736 million to build a new U.S. embassy in Islamabad, along with permanent housing for U.S. government civilians and new office space in the Pakistani capital.

    The scale of the projects rivals the giant U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, which was completed last year after construction delays at a cost of $740 million."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 9:37pm

14. Mr. Nichols. Your last column was way off the mark and I'm glad you replaced it with this one. I find myself pretty much in agreement with you here.

    As for Fox, they must be doing something right because they've really increased their viewership in the last several months and are are way ahead in the ratings game. I think the WH is seriously worried at that development. The answer, of course is for the WH to embrace Fox and sent it's people out to appear on Fox regularly to get their voices heard. Nobody is watching MSNBC and CNN.

    I, myself, lke to watch as much from both perspectives as I can. I usually dvr either MSNBC or CNN and watch O'Reilly because he simply has the best format and is the most fair.

    I will admit that Hannity is over the top and is pretty much Limbaugh's Minyme, But Olbermann is also outrageous and crucified President Bush on a nightly basis. I find that I can tolerate Maddow and Blitzer, Comet and Cupid. Oh, sorry, got a little carried away there.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 9:52pm

15. but, i don't think hannity or beck or o'reilly would be the appropriate people to interview.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 7:34pm

    Chris Wallace has made plenty of offers.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 9:53pm

16. Frankly, I wish the WH would give as much attention to our situation in Afghanistan as they do to Fox News. Those kids who are fighting over there were only ten or eleven years old when 9/11 happened. They are trained to be killers and to fight, not to talk. That's Obama's job. So if it's talking that Obama wants, then get our kids the hell out of harms way first and then let him orate to his heart's content.

    Marines aren't diplomats.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 9:58pm

17. "Chris Wallace has made plenty of offers"

    i think the white house rejected his offers because (obviously) he was going to ask about ACORN, which is nothing more than a fox-fueled "controversy," and not worthy of serious attention, especially given the serious problems facing the country.

    as a lawyer, i think obama knows where that line of questioning will lead.

    however, if obama could say ahead of time, "look, no silly acorn questions...." then sure....

    but, anyways, who cares? it would be an interview i would watch....

    Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 10:10pm

18. Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 9:52pm

    I find myself in agreement with most of your posts.

    Fox will ask tougher questions than any other network...and many of them will make Obama uncomfortable....

    and thats good....if they ask something inappropiate, he can refuse to answer or say no with dignity and class using the power of his office....if he refuses to answer a question that is difficult and uncomfortable, then he will look foolish...he has fools around him, maybe its time to fired someone and fire him publicly.

    but now he placed himself and worse..our countyr in a horrible position...... Obama appears weak......we now appear weak.

    Best Nichols column ever......B+

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 10:34pm

19. $736 million to build a new U.S. embassy in Islamabad... rivals the giant U.S. Embassy in Baghdad completed last Bushie year after construction delays for $740 million."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 9:37pm

    I did not know that. . . W's Ranchette in Iraq, Circle I, ... The Embassy Sweets of Baghdad: 104 acres, shops, cinema, barracks, pool, mall, restaurants, fire station, power and water plants. A secure ‘classified' structure, room for 380 families.

    The Imperial

    Posted by winyahn at 10/12/2009 @ 10:49pm

20. Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 10:10pm

    Talk about having your head in the sand....or someplace a lot worse. The first question I'd ask Barack Obama is why he's hanging our troops out to dry and allowing the Taliban to regain control of Afghanistan after all the blood that's been shed already.

    Then I'd ask him why he hasn't closed GITMO yet as he promised he's do by the first of the year. Of course that's impossible.

    Next I'd ask him what the hell happened to his political capital visa-vie health care.

    Then I'd ask him what the hell he's doing about unemployment. Actually, that would be the first question.

    Then I'd get around to ACORN because Congress, the Census Bureau, Fox News and the IRS have already dealt with them. All I'd ask Obama about ACORN is what his ties are with them today.

    I think Chris Wallace would cover all of that in an hour.

    My question for you is why don't you want anyone from the WH talking to O'Reilly, Hannity or Beck? Michael Moore handled himself pretty well with Hannity. All you have to do is believe in your position and be able to articulate it. Lots of people will hear it.

    You see Darla, when politicians are afraid to face those whom they percieve as their enemies, they've already lost. The President may have the bully pulpit but Fox has the audience.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 10:57pm

21. Yeah, what's so hard about just fact checking? Well, FAUX SPEWS would have to spend half their next show doing retractions, or getting fined for willingly lying on the public airwaves.

    Most criminals will publicly whine about being innocent and framed, but if all they had to do is correct their substantiated wrongdoing, would they still choose to go to jail instead?

    (FCC requiring truth telling on the airwaves, what a concept!)

    Whining infers that there 'isn't' a just cause for at least making the effort to acknowledge the truth.

    In the scale of time, which benefits most moving a major cause forward, taking FAUX SPEWS to task on air for their regularly viewing receptacles to simply flush anything too weighty and complicated for their acknowledged preference-- the excessively blended always remaining aroma of hate.

    Or rather to do as Dunn did, to acknowledge the obvious waste of time being spewed at a la FAUX SPEWS, for a smarter preference; making better use of limited time and energy elsewhere.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2009 @ 11:09pm

22. Plus, I wear jogging clothes when I type here, so I'm sure the anonymous administration aide wasn't referring to me...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2009 @ 11:22pm

23. "Fox will ask tougher questions than any other network"

    (quote of the decade)

    "The first question I'd ask Barack Obama is why he's hanging our troops out to dry and allowing the Taliban to regain control of Afghanistan after all the blood that's been shed already"

    oh, it's obama who put our troops in a quagmire?

    you think it's just that simple just increasing troop levels in an unwinnable war? asking someone else's children to fight an unwinnable war, and possibly die for an unknown cause?

    and please, spare the "this is an important war" retort, i have no interest in hearing it (unless of course you're to enlist).

    Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 11:23pm

24. The News Corp. & The Nation, together at last :-)

    Posted by Kryon77 at 10/12/2009 @ 11:37pm

25. It's amusing how Bush and so-called conservatives can whine all day and night long about the MSM and liberal bias, but if a Democratic President points out an obvious truth that Fox is the Pravda of the Republican party, he's a whiner.

    Which network is the Pravda of the Democratic party? Oh yeah, there isn't one.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/12/2009 @ 11:39pm

26. btw, gunslinger, obama just authorized 13,000 more troops for your war.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 11:41pm

27. Yeah right Darla. Everyone here already knows how you feel about our troops and our country so you don't fool anyone. It's an unwinnable war in your eyes because you don't have the courage to fight it. The jury's still out on Obama, Michele that is. It's probably she who has control of Barack's scrotum. I think that as soon as Obama man's up and acts like a leader who has a fight to win, the country will get solidly behind him and he will win in 2012 in a landslide. President's that show weakness in the face of a threat do not usually get re-elected.

    So keep whining while our kids are dying. That will solve the problem. Meanwhile Iran goes nuclear and the Taliban takes back every ince they lost and Barack Obama twiddles his thumbs while accepting a peace award that is meant to try and control him.

    The President needs to take a long walk with his Portugese water dog , leave his cell phone with Michele and think. Because if he makes the wrong decision on this one, a lot more people that just those doing the fighting are going to die and it's not going to happen in Afghanistan.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 11:45pm

28. Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 11:41pm

    That's a good start.

    But it's not nearly enough to get the job done in a timely manner. And if you are an American Darla, it's your war as well. Our enemies aren't going to cut you any slack because you are a woman or because you are black or Jewish of some weed everyday. None of that matters to them. If you beleive in any kind of greater power, say a prayer for those thirteen thousand and all the others already in harms way. And sleep well tonight while they have your back.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 11:50pm

29. Which network is the Pravda of the Democratic party? Oh yeah, there isn't one.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/12/2009 @ 11:39pm

    That would be NBC/MSNBC.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 11:51pm

30. "It's an unwinnable war in your eyes because you don't have the courage to fight it"

    wow!

    gunslinger, i don't care to argue with half-wits. i mean, seriously, you sound like a homphobic teenage boy on a playground in a midwestern suburb.

    i don't have time to argue with knuckle-draggers.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 12:00am

31. Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 12:00am

    Yeah, Darlo, resort to your M.O. Can't argue a point so you sling insults. Go take another hit. Your head is not clear enough. You've alread made the point that you don't support our troops, our president or our country so why would I waste MY time arguing with you. You don't even deserve citizenship.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:05am

32. Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 11:51pm

    Let's see, the top three stories on Fox News at the moment: White House vs. Fox News; 'Al Qaeda-Type' Terrorists Seen in U.S.; Sharpton, Jackson Punt Rush's NFL Bid.

    In short, "Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

    The three four stories on MSNBC: Driver's licenses scanned for crooks; Support troops swell force in Afghanistan; Are Pakistan's nukes vulnerable to attack?

    Can you tell me where the Democratic agenda is - because I'm missing it. It sounds like they are advocating for escalating the Afghan war - which Obama says he hasn't decided on. They are also questioning what the FBI is doing - an agency in the executive branch.

    You want to try again? Maybe site some examples where Fox news questioned something Bush was doing - like the torture, the surge, anything?

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/13/2009 @ 12:23am

33. Posted by srjenkins at 10/13/2009 @ 12:23am

    Maybe you don't watch Fox enough to know that they rerun their 8 to 11 lineup from 11 to 2 when Beck comes on again. They have news flashes periodically. tomorrow they'll cover the anemic troop addition in depth. I've got to wonder why Obama made the announcement after prime time.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:35am

34. "If the Fox interviewers are absurdly unfair, the American people will respond with appropriate consternation. On the other hand, if they are aggressive and pointed in their challenges, Obama will rise or fall on the quality of his responses. His aides, if they have any faith in their man's abilities, should bend over backwards to accept some Fox interviews."

    Fair column for a CHANGE, but its a straight "C" YourJomamma!

    Funny thing is that without his "big telepromter" feeding him the magic "O" knows he will come off as either the consumate fool he is, or will fully reinforce the arrogant elitist egotist views most have of him! He doesn't dare go on Fox without highly "qualified" realms of discussion and he and his handlers know it!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/13/2009 @ 12:38am

35. Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:35am

    Well, you've got me there. I watch less than 40 hours of television in a year. Not counting college basketball or John Stewart, less than 10 hours. I think I have only seen Fox programming a couple of times at a relative's house, the last time was around the time of Katrina. I can't ever recall watching NBC beyond maybe an episode or two of Keith Olbermann.

    Watching TV news strikes me as a great way to be misinformed. Further, 18 minutes of commercials for every hour of television watched strikes me as entirely too high a price for the "service".

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/13/2009 @ 01:09am

36. No wonder David Corn moved to MoJo where the real journalists are.

    Posted by CitizenPain at 10/13/2009 @ 04:07am

37. How many people think Harwood made up that quote? Serves his purpose twofold: ridicules bloggers, and makes the Obama folks seem kind of tetchy.

    All this stuff is just distraction anyway to keep us from looking at the crumbling walls of our empire.

    Posted by Citizen54 at 10/13/2009 @ 06:56am

38. He doesn't dare go on Fox without highly "qualified" realms of discussion and he and his handlers know it!---Posted by BigPasture at 10/13/2009 @ 12:38am

    Uh, RIO?...He DID go on Fox...on O'Reilly. It was even mentioned in John Nichols' article if you had read it.

    Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 07:24am

39. You know, I know we're not supposed to ever, ever, ever say anything good about Bush, but to be fair, the man sat down with CBS news even after the Dan Rather/TANG thing, and he gave interviews to NBC, ABC, etc. The press was hard on Bush, every day, and he didn't run around making the press out to be his enemies. He surely made it clear he didn't like them much, but he talked to them, like a president should.

    And I disagree with these people who say that Harwood should not have quoted his anonymous source. We willfully accept quotes from anonymous sources all the time when they are messages we want to hear. This one exposes the Obama WH (if not the president himself) as being stuck on this "if you're not our best friends, then you're our enemies" idea and, excuse me, but when Bush said "you're either with us or your against us" we hated him for it. And he wasn't saying it to his own countrymen.

    Obama may be a good guy, but he seems to be surrounding himself with creeps. He needs a better class of company.

    Posted by DanaMack at 10/13/2009 @ 08:06am

40. You are forgetting one thing. Courage. It takes courage, not just political insight, to go where you are not loved by sycophants. Obama has no courage. Never has, never will. Just ask Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That little pissant has wiped the floor with our our pantywaist president.

    Posted by Diggs at 10/13/2009 @ 08:15am

41. The comedy here is people attacking this messenger for rejecting the POTUS policy of attacking the messenger.

    POTUS as chicken-spit punk does not cut it in this country, or this world. It is a certain course to one forgettable, regrettable term.

    Obama deftly combines the thin skinned paranoia of Nixon and the hapless helplessness of the featherweight Carter.

    Time to man up, as they say.

    Posted by id8 at 10/13/2009 @ 08:19am

42. Perfect examples of FAUX SPEWS here. Why waste our presidents time with morons with an agenda of hate? Better to fix what they broke than help them with their destructive ways.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/13/2009 @ 08:33am

43. "...but when Bush said "you're either with us or your against us" we hated him for it. And he wasn't saying it to his own countrymen." (DanaMack)

    Thank you, DanaMack, for your remarks. They are right on, very insightful. Lots of people are blind to this underlying "theme" in Obama's character and, unfortunately, I suspect it will be his downfall.

    Americans see the character of a president. It can't be hidden. Even if they make political mistakes, ultimately, especially over time, they will be forgiven if we believe at their core that they are strong, honest, "respectful-to-all" people.

    So far, Obama has managed to alienate and diss so many groups.... the underlying message has been: "You disagree with us.... you're our enemy."

    We are not Cuba or Venezuela. Yet.

    Posted by Kristen918 at 10/13/2009 @ 08:55am

44. ...... if a Democratic President points out an obvious truth that Fox is the Pravda of the Republican party, he's a whiner.

    Which network is the Pravda of the Democratic party? Oh yeah, there isn't one.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/12/2009 @ 11:39pm

    You DO know who authored this thread, uh? Most of us, even some libs, happen to agree. Interesting for you to come to Magic's aid?!

    You're right in that "there isn't one" network serving as the "Pravda of the Democratic party", it's the entire Legacy Media and much of the early internet `media' from which BHO suckered in the small funding and volunteers before going BIG time w/BIG donors and BIG political `consultants'.

    Posted by Happy at 10/13/2009 @ 09:11am

45. 'Obama should be better than Cheney. But...'

    '...there are now serious questions about whether a Democratic president and an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress can enact basic elements of the Democratic agenda.'

    '...this administration is increasingly out of touch...'

    '...a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief.' -- John Nichols

    '...his racist tirades ... left a highly quotable record of hate.' -- Lisa Duggan (quoted by Richard Kim) -- The Nation -- http://www.thenation.com/ blogs/notion/334770

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/13/2009 @ 09:16am

46. "oh, it's obama who put our troops in a quagmire?"

    Like it or not, he is the president, he holds responcibility for all that happens on his watch. Whinners complain about what they are left, winners access the situation, check out the options and make decisions, study the results and make new decisions. Whinners complain and dither. js

    Posted by jessea at 10/13/2009 @ 09:37am

47. Obama Approves 13,000 Support Troops to Afghanistan By VOA News 13 October 2009

    "Pentagon officials say the increase of support troops in Afghanistan should not come as a surprise. U.S. presidential administrations have not routinely publicized large deployments of support troops to Afghanistan and Iraq."

    Support "troops" and contractors already outnumber combat troops. "No surprise" -no kidding. Full steam ahead.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/13/2009 @ 09:41am

48. Can you tell me where the Democratic agenda is - because I'm missing it. It sounds like they are advocating for escalating the Afghan war - which Obama says he hasn't decided on. They are also questioning what the FBI is doing - an agency in the executive branch.

    You want to try again? Maybe site some examples where Fox news questioned something Bush was doing - like the torture, the surge, anything?

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/13/2009 @ 12:23am

    MSNBC Democratic Party Shills:

    Andrea Mitchell

    Chris Matthews (former aide to Jimmy Carter)

    Keith Olbermann

    David Schuster (one of the worst, just below Ed Schultz-even more of a shill than Olbermann)

    Rachel Maddow

    Ed Schultz-the worst shill

    http://www.wegoted.com/about/

    <Thursday, September 24, 2009 http://cnsnews.com/news/article/54532

    (CNSNews.com) - MSNBC talk show host Ed Schultz, discussing health care reform on his program on Wednesday, said that Republicans "want to see you dead."

    "Hold it right there," Schultz said. "The Republicans lie. They want to see you dead. They‘d rather make money off your dead corpse. They kind of like it when that woman has cancer and they don't have anything for her. That‘s how the insurance companies make money, by denying the coverage.">

    Lawrence O'Donnell-former Clinton White House Staff member

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 09:43am

49. Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 09:43am

    Again, how is it you know so much about MSNBC, but don't watch Fox?

    Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 10:10am

50. '...his racist tirades ... left a highly quotable record of hate.' -- Lisa Duggan (quoted by Richard Kim) -- The Nation -- http://www.thenation.com/ blogs/notion/334770

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/13/2009 @ 09:16am

    So what are you saying, that John Nichols is a racist for criticizing the President?

    Posted by Mistral at 10/13/2009 @ 10:33am

51. Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/13/2009 @ 09:16am

    So what are you saying, that John Nichols is a racist for criticizing the President?

    Posted by Mistral at 10/13/2009 @ 10:33am

    Everybody criticizing the President is a racist....even if situational!

    e.g.: I support whatever he does w/Af-Pak (with good results expected)......NOT a racist!

    I oppose his fiscal policies......AM a racist!

    Support the portions of his Pork Bill going to infrastructure R&M......NOT a racist!

    Oppose that portion feeding the Education and Gubber establishments.....AM a racist!

    Man, it's fun!

    Posted by Happy at 10/13/2009 @ 10:48am

52. Darladoon- most of the points I would make to you have already been made, but may I point out to you that Candidate Obama unloaded on McCain and blasted Bush for not finishing the fight in Afghanistan which he, obama, called 'the war of necessity'.

    In 2008, candidate obama said (and if you look you will locate the video) about Afghanistan 'Losing is NOT an option.'

    As for your issue with the writer using the term 'war' to describe Fox vs the administration, The New York Times quoted White House communications director Anita Dunn as saying of Fox: "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent."

    So, do you kiss your opponent or do you fight him? And if you fight him, is that not one way of saying 'war'?

    Do some research, lawyer.

    Posted by InOhio at 10/13/2009 @ 10:50am

53. While we are stuck in our "left" "right" positions, it appears to me that UN Agenda 21 is being enacted: no private property, usurping of land via crushing property taxes, no cars, population goal 1 Billion, health care rationing, no drilling, no Nat Gas, food shortages via biofuels feedstock destruction, mandated vaccines, the coming internet control and children indoctrinated in year round school. Our little sliver in time democracy going back to serf and masters. Obama throws everyone under the bus eventually, the left shouldn't be surprised. He was thrown under the bus by two fathers, his mother, and his grandparents were so deranged that they name Obama's mother Stanley because they wanted a boy.

    Posted by lilacardiff at 10/13/2009 @ 10:56am

54. Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 09:43am

    Again, how is it you know so much about MSNBC, but don't watch Fox?

    Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 10:10am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --we all know how you know so much about Fox et al Mask--they OWN YOU!

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 10:58am

55. Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 07:24am

    Right. O'Reilly did host Obama, not after the election but before. Obama used O'Reilly at that time to try and reach some of the fence sitters who tune in to O'Reilly every night. It was a smart strategy by Obama, (O'Reilly has been number one for years now), and Bill wasn't his usual pit bull self during that interview.

    But the worm has turned now. Barack knows that next time he sits across from Bill O'Reilly, the gloves will be off. Obama will be asked embarrassing questions and he will not be let off the hook. That, in a nutshell, is why you will not see the Whiner In Chief on Fox anytime soon. Letterman is safer.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 11:05am

56. "The fact is that the results of the 2008 election did not reveal "a closely-divided country." Obama arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the most muscular mandate accorded any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslide. "

    Whaat? How did this recent history suddenly become so revised? Obama was certainly NOT anywhere near a landslide, but won by a small percentage. He was elected without a mandate since the country was so obviously divided. Reagan vs. Mondale was 59 to 41. Obama was a mere 52 to 45 percent.

    Happy - the American Pravda is ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC. Most anchors experience Chris Matthews' leg tingle. The msm are giddy when it comes to their worship of The Won and if you can't see that you're a indeed blind.

    Posted by ladycatnip at 10/13/2009 @ 11:19am

57. Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 09:43am

    Oh so you were showing how FAUX SPEWS were showing how MSNBC were showing what wouldn't be shown on FAUX SPEWS?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 10/13/2009 @ 11:21am

58. The problem for them is that not everyone wishes to live in:

    BARACK OBAMA'S FAIRY PALACE

    http://naturalfake.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/barack-obamas-fairy-palace

    Find out why.

    Posted by naturalfake at 10/13/2009 @ 11:34am

59. Posted by Happy at 10/13/2009 @ 10:48am

    No, not everybody who opposes Obama is a racist, just a small portion...

    like you.

    Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 11:45am

60. I voted for him, but...

    He should let his advisors talk to the media, then distance himself from the comments if they are inappropriate... just like every other president.

    Never sit down with Rush Limbaugh... it's a trap. Unless they are going to poison his Ho Ho's.

    Make some major decisions in the next six months about the issues that he ran on, or else we may have to face Princess Stupid running for the white House in 2012.

    Take Happy's piggy bank away... the whining we would hear could supply the power grid with enough energy to run most of the country.

    Posted by ficheye at 10/13/2009 @ 11:51am

61. Thanks John for saying it like it is. I agree, Obama needs to meet Fox head on instead of resorting to RW-like attacks.

    Posted by morninmist at 10/13/2009 @ 11:53am

62. Honeymoon Over?

    Posted by OneVote at 10/12/2009 @ 8:50pm

    What honeymoon?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 11:59am

63. Just as the country was calcified under Clinton - the dead body list, Ken Starr, impeachment, then under W with the super string of scandals from the fake reporter to torture to Halliburton to body armor to name about 1%, it's now hardening in a sickly turning of emasculated whitey projection: celeb, Muslim, racist, birther, socialist from Righties, and this sort of hostility and distortion from the Left. It's just wrong to use words and quotes, especially the word 'war' as Nichol's does here. We're heading for some consumer protections, some climate change legislation, some improved stance in the world, some winding down of Iraq / Guantanamo, some effort to help middle class -- yes the some falls short for you, fine. Just stick to issues, don't employ the same cheap devices the corporate media has now standardized. No official used to word "war" in this context, did they?

    Posted by winyahn at 10/13/2009 @ 11:59am

64. What an pathetic and inanely naive analysis-Nichols is obviously a man whose never been in a street fight-he makes the ludicrous assumption that this is some sort of Marquess of Queensberry regulated match when in fact it's a midnight knife fight. Farce News must be marginalized and clearly exposed as a hyper partisan organization whose SOLE purpose is to destroy the President and the Democratic party. What purpose is served legitimizing them by granting an interview with a marginally less ideological host such as O'Reilly, when after Obama's 8 minutes the interview will be sliced into out-of-context clips to be interspersed with other clips that make totally specious and un-rebuttable attacks aginst not just the administration's policies but the very character of Mr. Obama? Has John Nichols ever WATCHED Fox and Friends? Beck? Hannity? Cavuto? Clearly the answer is no, otherwise he would not have made such a pedantically erroneous critique of the adminstration's strategy to deal with such an incalcitrant and dangerous enemy. A hard shot in the snot-box is how you dispatch a bully, and when they have been cowed into submission, then you can engage them, on terms dictated by the conqueror.

    Posted by gmannyc at 10/13/2009 @ 12:00pm

65. Frankly, I wish the WH would give as much attention to our situation in Afghanistan as they do to Fox News. Those kids who are fighting over there were only ten or eleven years old when 9/11 happened. They are trained to be killers and to fight, not to talk. That's Obama's job. So if it's talking that Obama wants, then get our kids the hell out of harms way first and then let him orate to his heart's content.

    Marines aren't diplomats.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 9:58pm

    What do you think Obama's been doing? He's trying to re-think an incredibly stupid Bush/Cheney strategy that got us mired down in Afghanistan because they wanted to go off into "target rich" Iraq which had NOTHING to do with 9/11!

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:02pm

66. Hey -- someone's done a little editing! Cool.

    Was there any acknowledgment of an error?

    INITIALLY:

    First, the president and his aides decide to "go to war" against Fox News

    CURRENTLY:

    First, the president and his aides go to war with Fox News

    Posted by winyahn at 10/13/2009 @ 12:03pm

67. Fox will ask tougher questions than any other network...and many of them will make Obama uncomfortable....

    and thats good....if they ask something inappropiate, he can refuse to answer or say no with dignity and class using the power of his office....if he refuses to answer a question that is difficult and uncomfortable, then he will look foolish...he has fools around him, maybe its time to fired someone and fire him publicly.

    but now he placed himself and worse..our countyr in a horrible position...... Obama appears weak......we now appear weak.

    Best Nichols column ever......B+

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 10:34pm

    But I thought it was traitorous to question the President's thinking in a time of war. That's what you guys kept telling us for eight years....

    Hypocrites.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:05pm

68. The press was hard on Bush, every day,

    Posted by DanaMack at 10/13/2009 @ 08:06am

    Ummmm, perhaps you missed the first six years of his Presidency? It was only after the Katrina fiasco that the press' attitudes towards Bush started to change and they started asking intelligent questions.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:11pm

69. A hard shot in the snot-box is how you dispatch a bully, and when they have been cowed into submission, then you can engage them, on terms dictated by the conqueror.

    Posted by gmannyc at 10/13/2009 @ 12:00pm

    So, using logic like that, we should...what... nuke Afghanistan? Maybe Pakistan?

    We should take street fighting to it's ultimate level? I mean, OBL is obviously a big street bully, right?

    I know your post was about Obama and the media, and generally, I would agree that Obama needs to take a tougher stance, but really....that kind of logic is practically neolithic.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:20pm

70. Ignoring Fox (?) News is not whining! The administration should participate only with legitimate news media.

    Posted by jjrichard at 10/13/2009 @ 12:29pm

71. gmannyc, WORD!

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:30pm

72. And Fox "logic" is paleolithic-sorry if my realpolitik offends you, but it's horses for courses-stick to polite debate rules, and don't scratch your head in astonishment when you're hailing President Palin in 2012.

    Posted by gmannyc at 10/13/2009 @ 12:31pm

73. Perosnally, I hope you're right and that Obama starts pissing off the entire fourth estate. This guy is a liar, a turncoat and a very dangerous man and the sooner We The People hold this guy to account, the better. I'm ashamed I voted for the SOB, but I guess I have a lot of company in people who believed his jive. Obama's pissed off his base, pissed of the 'Christian' wrong, pissed off the poor, the working and the decent. Looks to me like his friends are getting few and far between. If he pisses off the press, that's a good thing, as far as I'm concerned. This guy is bad news for everyone.

    Posted by DejaVu at 10/13/2009 @ 12:42pm

74. After all the noise here about what Obama should or shouldn't do, I must say what gmannyc said was refreshing, Its like no slack, ever, for the prez, we all know what fox is like, (those on the left anyway), why should Obama have to mess with Faux Snooze? He's doing just fine with every other news outlet, wasn't it just the last couple weeks that the right was complaining he was over exposed? Jeez! He's either doing too much or not enough, no middle ground with the right or the left, sigh.... .

    Posted by Denise29 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:45pm

75. Fox routinely misrepresents and categorically lies, and needs to be called out for it.

    They just ran an attack ad in print, assailing the other major networks for "not covering" the smaller-than-represented Tea Party demonstration in Washington -- saw a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth

    Posted by reg373 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:45pm

76. Posted by gmannyc at 10/13/2009 @ 12:00pm

    So, in other words, what you're saying is you are afraid of Fox. They issued the challange and you are backing down with your false bravado. It's the old best defense is a good offense routine. Talk about transparency!

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 1:01pm

77. Posted by ladycatnip at 10/13/2009 @ 11:19am

    Interesting post.

    I went to Wikipedia and took every election from 1900 to 2008, put it into a spreadsheet and calculated the average margin of victory, 11.5%. Out of 28 elections, 18 had margins of victory greater than Obama, or 64%. Of those 18, 9 were because one of the candidates was the incumbent.

    So, if we eliminate races with larger margins featuring an incumbant (i.e., 1904, 1936-48, 1956, 1972, 1984, 1996), you have 10 of 19 races (53%) with a larger margin than Obama. If we were to also factor out other issues like actual celebrity (i.e., Eisenhower) third party campaigns (i.e., Roosevelt), etc., he might even look a bit better than average.

    So while the statement "...the most muscular mandate accorded any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslide" erroneously implies that Obama's win was on the order of Johnson's, it is equally wrong to say that he "won by a small percentage". He won by an average margin, and not out of line with non-incumbent races in the last half century.

    "He was elected without a mandate since the country was so obviously divided."

    I'm confused here. Do we live in China and are we looking for a mandate from heaven? Once elected, the President makes up his mind about what he needs to do and does it, that's what it means to have a representative form of government. He is not obligated to reflect the popular will and to talk about mandates based on popular will is to not understand our government.

    "The msm are giddy when it comes to their worship of The Won and if you can't see that you're a indeed blind."

    Let's crack out that old chestnut, shall we? Do you have Obama Derangement Syndrome? If you think media treats Obama much different than Bush, you haven't been paying attention.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/13/2009 @ 1:01pm

78. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:05pm

    It's not traitorous to ask the President anything. He's not our boss, we are his. I wish the WH reporters understood that. Everytime they ask questions like, "Mr. President, do you find your job enchanting?", I want to puke.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 1:05pm

79. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 12:11pm

    WHAT???? Man, talk about revisionist history. Guess you were incommunicado when Bush suffered the 9/11 attack and Michael Moore made a movie about it huh? Bush was called a dunce by the left before he was even elected. He wasn't the lightest bulb in the chandelier but at least he wasn't afraid to fight.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 1:11pm

80. Ironic, given its complaints about the "liberal MSM", which in fact is center-liberal on social but not economic issues, Fox News is a unique presence in the american media -- it is unabashedly a partisan and ideological network. There is no liberal or democratic equivalent. Obama is correct that they are motivated first by partisan and ideological goals, and only after that by journalistic standards.

    So why does a Nation columnist condemn Obama for 'whining."

    Posted by gren at 10/13/2009 @ 1:12pm

81. Posted by DejaVu at 10/13/2009 @ 12:42pm

    Oh calm down. The Prez will have you over for a beer and to shoot some hoops anytime.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 1:13pm

82. Well, the President needs to quit complaining that fox news won't give him a break. They never will, and it's ok. That's what the do.

    Progressives are disappointed that the President isn't moving as fast or as far as they would like, that's ok too, they help elect him, it is their job to pressure him in things important to them.

    The white house needs to wake up, smell the coffee, and remember this is the big leagues. a president will catch hell from everyone from time to time. That is part of the job.

    Preident Bush caught holy hell from some segments of the media and blogosphere, so did President Clinton. That's just the way things are.

    The distortions should be debunked, but, people will always be critical of the President, warrented or not, it's human nature.

    Posted by SoundGuyChris at 10/13/2009 @ 1:13pm

83. Fox News is a unique presence in the american media -- it is unabashedly a partisan and ideological network. There is no liberal or democratic equivalent.

    Posted by gren at 10/13/2009 @ 1:12pm | ignore this person |

    --au contraire. how can you watch msnbc and think it's not partisan and ideological? por favor.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 1:16pm

84. Posted by srjenkins at 10/13/2009 @ 1:01pm

    Interesting. I wonder what the percentages would have looked like if he ran against say, Colin Powell or maybe Condi Rice where the black vote would have been neutralized and the 'Yes we can' thing would have never seen the light of day.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 1:18pm

85. Posted by gren at 10/13/2009 @ 1:12pm

    Because he's embarrassed for his President.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 1:19pm

86. "He wasn't the lightest bulb in the chandelier but at least he wasn't afraid to fight."

    the perfect encapsulation of US foreign policy from 2001-2009.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 1:26pm

87. Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 1:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    MSNBC, during prime time, is becoming a liberal image of Fox, as a marketing response to Fox. Fair enough.

    Posted by gren at 10/13/2009 @ 1:33pm

88. Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 1:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person MSNBC, during prime time, is becoming a liberal image of Fox, as a marketing response to Fox. Fair enough. Posted by gren at 10/13/2009 @ 1:33pm | ignore this person |

    --glad to see you admit you were wrong (even if you didn't say those words exactly)

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 1:39pm

89. I don't care that Fox has the audience. They should not be legitimized, and that's what Obama would do by talking to them. They have no interest in facts and they will spin however they want to. I think he's doing the right thing, and it's about time

    Posted by pizzmoe at 10/13/2009 @ 1:45pm

90. Damn JOHN NICHOLS,

    Telling your administration to "Get over itself?"

    A shameless display of insensitivity?

    Calling another a whiner?

    Keep it up and you're outta the PC club. Report to the Real Men's pavilion on the double!

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/13/2009 @ 1:55pm

91. If he doesn't want to appear on Fix news, that's ok by me. My problem is - what the hell does he stand for? He should come out and state what his position is and then fight for it. This hop scotching all over the place is what gets me. He's like a sly fox who's acting chicken.

    Posted by trueleftist at 10/13/2009 @ 2:01pm

92. glad to see you admit you were wrong (even if you didn't say those words exactly)

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 1:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    This is what I don't understand. I acknowledge the merit of your point, then you follow-up with what reads to me as an obnoxious comment. Why do that. moreover, isn't it counter-productive. Why would I acknowledge your point next time if I think I'm going to get that kind of response. Instead I'll be inclined to argue and try to distinquish your example. (which I could do, in terms of how long Fox has been doing this and how relativeluy recently MSNBC has turned that way, as well as Fox' lack of an opposing view show, unlike MSNBC's Morning Joe Coffee.

    Or am I simply ignorant of the rules here -- that it is all about partisan bickering, argument, and insult, and no one is interested in reasoned discussion.

    Posted by gren at 10/13/2009 @ 2:07pm

93. "He wasn't the lightest bulb in the chandelier but at least he wasn't afraid to fight."----Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 1:11pm

    Who did HE fight, gun?

    Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 2:09pm

94. I find your subtle attack on Fox laughable. Yes, there is a reason Fox's ratings are huge; more truth is found on that network than any of the state run media's.

    As for Glenn Beck's train wreck--some train wreck--name one lie he's told about Van Jones or ACORN.

    They are the only people out there asking the tough questions. Do they lean right, yes, but so does CNN, CBS, and the other so called media outlets. You've got Chris Matthews musing about killing Rush Limbaugh, the left was hoping Tony Snow would die a painful death, Palin and her family being bashed daily, and you wonder why people are turning to Fox.

    I do agree with one thing, the President is a whiner.

    Keep drinking that juice--isn't that similar to a comment he made after one of his glorious speeches?

    Posted by Texanproud at 10/13/2009 @ 2:13pm

95. I am thoroughly amazed at the complete madness of those that believe FOX news and Limbaugh can be anything but pure propaganda, brain-washing, extremist right-wing, entertainment commentary shows. There is no news and the agenda of these and other such shows is truly anti-all-things-Obama and anti-all-things-not-far-right. These people have moved so far to the right that they are far-wrong on just about everything. The severe problem is that they do not have any balance in regards to the real needs of their fellow-Americans. When a commentary source becomes so hateful that it can find nothing good about there opposition they are no longer useful to society and in this case have become destructive to the fabric of what America is all about. President Obama might as well be walking into a pit of vipers whose sole purpose has been to destroy and cause Obama to fail despite the damage that this can cause to America. I for one do not walk into a bar with a reputation for hurting people and I do not blame President Obama for taking that into account about Fox and Limbaugh. As for the obviously brain-washed right-wing fox hounds on these posts, you are not making yourself look very intelligent, at all, by professing that you do watch and believe most everything coming from this "news distortion center". Whatever this game is about from Fox news, Limbaugh, etc, it is not about what is best for America, it is to these people what is best for themselves and only themselves. If you want to play this game right, lets call it from another angle. Fox news, Limbaugh, etc are all anti-all-things of social good or in short extremist anti-socialists. Fox is anti-Obama, anti-liberal, anti-socialist, anti-America, and un-American with no balance. NONE!

    Posted by dlboggan at 10/13/2009 @ 2:14pm

96. Oh, excuse me. CNN, CBS and the other mainstream media outlets run left, don't they?

    Posted by Texanproud at 10/13/2009 @ 2:16pm

97. "Who did HE fight, gun?"

    acres upon acres of texas brush.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 2:18pm

98. Yes, yes, those who accuse Fox audience as being extreme always attack, attack, attack, but you'll notice they never seem to work with facts. Was Van Jones not an avowed communist by his own admission? Was he not a truther? Did he not accuse the whites of poisoning the minorities? Were millions of dollars not embezzled by a leader at ACORN? And on and on and on.

    Just look at your post, no substance, just name calling.

    But, no, you people can't argue on substance can you? You just prefer to name call. When you get a brain of your own and use it, you might be taken seriously. Until then, enjoy your kool-aid.

    Posted by Texanproud at 10/13/2009 @ 2:21pm

99. Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 1:18pm

    The Republicans tried that in Obama's senate race. It didn't work.

    Colin Powell is an unlikely candidate for the Republican party. I can only imagine the kind of in-fighting his nomination would cause, and how many racist whites would have not shown up at all because they only had two black candidates to choose from.

    Condi Rice, on the other hand, would have caused less dissension in Republican ranks but would have little to no appeal with blacks AND she would have to deal with the white racists.

    Neither candidate would have posed much of a challenge, even if we could get past all the Republican seniority, winner take all approach to the nomination.

    Posted by srjenkins at 10/13/2009 @ 2:24pm

100. CNN, CBS, and ABC are usually balance in their news and commentary. You can see them questioning both sides just as strongly and ask appropriate and sometimes embarrassing questions that need to be answered. They are very obviously making an effort to be neither to much left or right. Fox's issue is there is no left to anything for them and that makes them purely propagandistic which is very dangerous to any society. There has to be balance. You have to be bringing people in from both sides to talk the issues. Fox is well known for bringing mostly those that support their agenda with a proper balance of opposition. If opposition is pulled in, it is someone who they know cannot hold their own in such a pit of vipers. Twist, distort, suggest, speculate, and lie with few or no facts and what do you have left is but a hateful and miss-informed audience who seem to do what they are told without the real facts or logical understanding of reality. Fox has be very successful at bring out the worst of among the worst of us. Turning extremists into even greater extremists is a very dangerous path to be following. Where does this destruction of American values come to an end. When America is no longer America or when real Americans see Fox for what it really is. Un-American, destructive and anti-all things not Fox or far-right.

     Posted by dlboggan at 10/13/2009 @ 2:28pm

101. by winyahn at 10/12/2009 @ 8:36pm...

     Insightful and on the mark!

     Fox style journalism at The Nation... stinks.

     This 'flip flopping" rabble rousing MSM tactic is cowardly, manipulative and sleazy.

     Posted by ttr at 10/13/2009 @ 2:35pm

102. I love the way people take a news story by an "anonymous" White House aide and treat it as a direct quote from the President himself.

     But I do agree that they should ignore Fox News. It's the media's job to spread Fox propaganda.

     Posted by Dailyfare at 10/13/2009 @ 2:36pm

103. "It takes courage, not just political insight, to go where you are not loved by sycophants. Obama has no courage."

     Uh, Diggs -hate to spoil you insulting rant - but President Obama has already appeared on Fox earlier this year.

     Enough is a-freakin'-nough.

     Posted by Dailyfare at 10/13/2009 @ 2:40pm

104. Oh, excuse me. CNN, CBS and the other mainstream media outlets run left, don't they?

     Posted by Texanproud at 10/13/2009 @ 2:16pm

     CBS got rid of Dan Rather after the forged documents scandal. He was the bad apple. Now they are unbiased.

     Posted by Mistral at 10/13/2009 @ 2:43pm

105. Texanproud: I am going to call you on your supposed Christian values since all Republicans are Christians and there are not Democratic Christians, right? I am a Christian but here is passage in the Bible that you seem to have ignored or overlooked. You may even apply them to all others but not to yourself. ---------- Let any that has not sinned throw the first stone. Van Jones has made his mistakes in the past as you have. You may deny doing any wrong or even try to say that your sins were of a lesser degree. This does not mean you have not sinned. Also, how can you justify what you attempt to do that is right in today's world if you have attempted to overcome your sins? What we may have been in the past does not always make us so today. This to me states that if you can forgive yourself and move on and not let others do the same makes you a hypocrite and in some respects a bigot. You may go against ALL things Obama because he is a Democrat, a liberal, a black man, non-Republican, or not of your thinking? If he were Republican he could do no wrong but instead he is a Democratic, moderate liberal, black man and to you he can do no right. I suggest to you to not throw that first stone......

     Posted by dlboggan at 10/13/2009 @ 2:48pm

106. This is what I don't understand. I acknowledge the merit of your point, then you follow-up with what reads to me as an obnoxious comment. Why do that. moreover, isn't it counter-productive. Why would I acknowledge your point next time if I think I'm going to get that kind of response. Instead I'll be inclined to argue and try to distinquish your example. (which I could do, in terms of how long Fox has been doing this and how relativeluy recently MSNBC has turned that way, as well as Fox' lack of an opposing view show, unlike MSNBC's Morning Joe Coffee. Or am I simply ignorant of the rules here -- that it is all about partisan bickering, argument, and insult, and no one is interested in reasoned discussion. Posted by gren at 10/13/2009 @ 2:07pm | ignore this person |

     --why not just say you were wrong, explicitly? you have rules against admitting when you're wrong, like mask?

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 2:59pm

107. The present day Democratic Party is closer to the original ideals of the former Republican Party then the extremists in the present Republican party. So why do Democrats have control of both houses and the administration? Could it be because the extremists within the present Republican Party scared the moderates within it and the independents back towards the middle and a little to the left. You did it to yourselves. No one to blame but yourselves. Your Republican party minimized the masses by giving power to a few very rich and powerful neo-cons who wanted to control America from a very centralized control center. People like yourself fail to see how much you have been brain-washed to believe that all things not of this extremist ideology needs to be destroyed in order to retain and take back control, no matter what the cost. Yes I am a moderate and I have my agreements with some of the conservatives ideas. But, I will not condone or sit on the sidelines while I see a bunch of nut-cases try to destroy the freedoms, values and ideals that this, our country, has fought and died for. Compromise is no longer a word in these extremists vocabulary. They have truly become the party of no and the hater of all things Obama and all thing not of their own making. This has never worked for any group throughout the history of all mankind and it will not work now. Spewing hate and miss-information at all costs that cause more hate and fear will surely be it's greatest downfall. The Republicans are destroying themselves from the inside out because these hateful people cannot trust anyone nor can they be trusted. Eventually, it becomes powerless as the greater masses fail to believe and trust anything coming from these extremist right-wing fanatics.

     Posted by dlboggan at 10/13/2009 @ 3:00pm

108. The last time I saw an administration publicly vent on a media outlet like this was the Nixon administration on the WA Post and NYT.

     bmarks56

     Posted by BMarks at 10/13/2009 @ 3:10pm

109. "I don't care that Fox has the audience. They should not be legitimized, and that's what Obama would do by talking to them. They have no interest in facts and they will spin however they want to. I think he's doing the right thing..." Posted by pizzmoe at 10/13/2009 @ 1:45pm

     ************

     "They should not be legitmized" ?? What part of free speech don't you understand? Or are you part of the left wing fascists who want to be the arbiters of who is heard and who is silenced? Fox News has an audience because they aren't afraid to report the news or ask tough questions.

     The general public has found the only way to actually find out the news is from the blogosphere and Fox News - the regular msm completely ignores stories - such as ACORN - until it's already three weeks old.

     Posted by ladycatnip at 10/13/2009 @ 3:14pm

110. WHAT???? Man, talk about revisionist history. Guess you were incommunicado when Bush suffered the 9/11 attack and Michael Moore made a movie about it huh? Bush was called a dunce by the left before he was even elected. He wasn't the lightest bulb in the chandelier but at least he wasn't afraid to fight.

     Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 1:11pm

     Wasn't afraid to fight??? Why do you think Daddy got him out of Vietnam? (And BTW, he WAS a dunce before he even got elected...and some of us were warning America about electing him since he had failed at every previous attempt to do anything, but ya'll wouldn't listen.)

     Bush has never fought in his entire life, except maybe that time in college when he was fighting to get more cocaine. However, he WAS more than willing to send other people's sons and daughters off to fight in Iraq, a war which was a mistake and which he planned (if you want to actually call it a "plan") BEFORE 9/11.

     I don't use revisionist history...I remember 9/11 very well and have a photo of New York (with the towers) hanging in my house, so I see those towers every single day. I will NEVER forget 9/11, and I will ALWAYS argue that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, but that sure as HELL didn't stop W from sending our troops to HIS war, using lies to the American people to justify it.

     It sounds like you've got rose colored glasses on when it comes to Bush's "fights." He's a coward, has always been a coward, and standing on a pile of rubble with a bullhorn, or standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier, won't make him any less of a coward.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 3:23pm

111. "...instead he is a Democratic, moderate liberal, black man and to you he can do no right. I suggest to you to not throw that first stone......"

     Posted by dlboggan at 10/13/2009 @ 2:48pm

     *********************

     First of all, Obama is an extreme leftist of the socialist/Marxist pov. Second of all, throwing stones in the Bible is referring to making a judgment upon another person's innocent or guilt. It has NOTHING to do with government, politics, or politicians. Jesus was speaking directly to individuals, not government officials.

     We have a moral obligation to vett people's backgrounds if they are appointed or elected to office. Van Jones' background spoke volumes about the man, as do all Obama's appointees, and because of his background was not qualified to his appointment.

     That's not throwing stones.

     Posted by ladycatnip at 10/13/2009 @ 3:23pm

112. No, you are wrong... someone, anyone, everyone should be screaming at and about FAUX and their rabid, nasty underlings 24/7 because I for one, and I suspect one among millions, am sick and tired of FAUX's "unfair and unbalanced" crap. I'm glad the WH did and said what they said... it it true. Something I can't say about FOX Gnus... and I guess you agree... take the high road and always and as long as possible... but when sh*t-loaded vocal a-holes like Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Lielly dominate the airwaves disguised as "news" all the while tearing down what we all say is our country, then, yes, damnit, I'm mad.

     And, that my friends is fair and balanced and one the mark.

     Posted by Eyepublius at 10/13/2009 @ 3:25pm

113. "Jesus was speaking directly to individuals, not government officials. "

     I meant to include - "Jesus was speaking directly to individuals in the religious community, not government officials."

     Posted by ladycatnip at 10/13/2009 @ 3:26pm

114. I suggest to you to not throw that first stone......

     Posted by dlboggan at 10/13/2009 @ 2:48pm

     But then, nobody could post to this blog except the Virgin Mary!

     Posted by Mistral at 10/13/2009 @ 3:30pm

115. Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/13/2009 @ 1:05pm

     Totally missed my point, gunslinger. My point was that for 8 years, liberals were called traitors and worse for DARING to questions Bush's wisdom (and I use the term loosely). So, now that there's a Dem President, it's all "let's go get 'im, boys!" from the conservatives.

     That's why I called them hypocrites. Fox News never questioned ANYTHING Bush did, yet now, they're all about questioning everything about Obama, including his eligibility to even be President. It THAT'S not a right wing tool of the GOP, I don't know what is.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 3:30pm

116. Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Lielly dominate the airwaves disguised as "news"

     Posted by Eyepublius at 10/13/2009 @ 3:25pm

     Seems to be a pretty miserable disguise. I mean, how many people here think these are "news" rather than "opinion" programs?

     Posted by Mistral at 10/13/2009 @ 3:33pm

117. ladycatnip, Van Jones, the man , as you see him? Or as how other people see him, there could be a difference, no?

     Posted by Denise29 at 10/13/2009 @ 3:36pm

118. Posted by ladycatnip at 10/13/2009 @ 3:26pm

     So, you'd probably agree with the statement that Jesus wasn't REALLY speaking to everyone all the time about how to live an upstanding and moral life to ensure one's place in heaven.

     He was ONLY speaking to CERTAIN people at CERTAIN times.

     Boy, do YOU need to read your Bible.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 3:39pm

119. The most important reason the White House should back off is it is putting Fox on the same level as the White House. Would Obama get in a heated discussion with a high school sophmore? Of course not because it would give him and his arguments crediblity.

     Fox is having a field day with it for that very reason. In responding to Dunn et al, Fox throws in its digs that the controversy in putting their ratings at an all time high, new viewers, the White House being Nixonesque, etc., all designed to infuriate Rahm Emmanuel even further.

     The White House is giving a PR assist to Fox they couldn't buy with money. With a little more of the same medicine, O'Reilly will increase his audience of 3.5 to 4.1 million to Katie Couric's 5.1 to 5.6 million. Now that would be a story.

     Posted by CorkyBoyd at 10/13/2009 @ 3:50pm

120. Ahhh ... but here's the money quote from the above article:

     " His aides, if they have any faith in their man's abilities, should bend over backwards to accept some Fox interviews."

     Mayhap President Obama's aides, who know him best, have no faith in his ability handle tough and pointed questions.

     God knows none of us have seen him under such circumstances ...

     Posted by afy at 10/13/2009 @ 4:08pm

121. I call BS Afy, Obama had plenty of tough questions during the presidental race and I say he did rise to the occasion, more than once too.

     Posted by Denise29 at 10/13/2009 @ 4:27pm

122. Do the President's protectors in the WH, or the ones commenting here, realize that part of being the President is to act as Commander-in-Chief? If President Obama can't handle the questioning of some commentators or news people on Fox News, why do we think he can handle the safety of our country?

     When Hillary Clinton ran the ad in the primary campaign about answering the WH phone in the middle of the night, I'm sure she didn't think it would be the Nobel Peace Prize Committee calling because he accepts honors pretty well. Maybe she should have asked whether he would be able to present his programs to all Americans, regardless of whether they watch/listen/read "friendly" sources versus sources that are defined as being "unfriendly" to the President.

     It's actually sad that with all the important issues on the table, that the WH has decided to devote so much energy (and attention) to their news enemies. And what a losing battle to take on because it is a good illustration of their pettiness. Maybe he won't be remembered as "Obama the Vain" as George Will opined, but Obama the Thin-skinned.

     Posted by lilybee at 10/13/2009 @ 4:44pm

123. Yes I am a moderate and I have my agreements with some of the conservatives ideas. But, I will not condone or sit on the sidelines while I see a bunch of nut-cases try to destroy the freedoms, values and ideals that this, our country, has fought and died for. Compromise is no longer a word in these extremists vocabulary. They have truly become the party of no and the hater of all things Obama and all thing not of their own making.

     Posted by dlboggan at 10/13/2009 @ 3:00pm |

     Really? Is that why you made this prior post?

     Fox news, Limbaugh, etc are all anti-all-things of social good or in short extremist anti-socialists. Fox is anti-Obama, anti-liberal, anti-socialist, anti-America, and un-American with no balance. NONE!

     Posted by dlboggan at 10/13/2009 @ 2:14p

     Do you equate someone who is anti-liberalism with being anti-American?

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 4:55pm

124. Wasn't afraid to fight??? Why do you think Daddy got him out of Vietnam? (And BTW, he WAS a dunce before he even got elected...and some of us were warning America about electing him since he had failed at every previous attempt to do anything, but ya'll wouldn't listen.) Bush has never fought in his entire life, except maybe that time in college when he was fighting to get more cocaine. However, he WAS more than willing to send other people's sons and daughters off to fight in Iraq, a war which was a mistake and which he planned (if you want to actually call it a "plan") BEFORE 9/11.

     I don't use revisionist history...

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 3:23pm

     The day you can show that you served in the military is the day you can address Bush's military service. Until then, shut up! You have no right to talk about his service if you didn't bother to serve.

     And your posts are constant revisionist history. I'm still waiting for you to get anything right about history.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 4:56pm

125. >>>encourage liberal bloggers to "take off their pajamas" and get serious about politics. <<<

     Like it or not, the progressive cause can gain more momentum, spread more quickly, and become more enduring if Obama succeeds.

     The 4th Estate stuff was thrown out long ago when news became entertainiment, and "market segments" were divided along ideological lines. FOX certainly encouraged this by staking their claim to the right wing market segment, and if we refuse to acknowledge this we are just not in tune with reality.

     There has to be an EFFECTIVE counter-weight to FOX News. And while Rachel and Oberman provide "some" balance, blowing out the right wing with progressive bloggers would put us in a much stronger position. If your commitment to furthering the Progressive Cause is greater than being a counter-weight to the president, then I do not know how there can be any other option.

     I think Watergate "institutionalized" presidential skepticism in the mainstream journalist community. FOX News is capitalizing on this by adding partisan-based skepticism so that we get a "bigger" anti-president bias than we would ordinarily from the press.

     Posted by Metteyya at 10/13/2009 @ 5:07pm

126. Do you equate someone who is anti-liberalism with being anti-American?

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 4:55pm

     Hmmmm. Let me turn this around for a second....do most media conservatives (Rush, Hannity, Coulter, etc.) equate Liberals with upstanding patriotic Americans or with traitors, treason and stupidity?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 5:08pm

127. John Nichols really needs to get over himself!

     Posted by SteveStone at 10/13/2009 @ 5:12pm

128. "You have no right to talk about his service if you didn't bother to serve"

     why not? one can certainly criticize people who ask others to fight who never fought themselves.

     that seems fairly obvious to me.

     Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 5:56pm

129. FAUX SPEWS is really meant, like the new con repubs here, to sow the seeds of confusion, mistrust, doubt and hate. (Better to manipulate you my little dearie.)

     An analogy: Understanding that it's against the law to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre (when there is no actual fire), FAUX SPEWS began by whispering the possibility of a fire, just so a few people next to them could hear it.

     Then they got a little louder, explaining to a few more in the theatre how the smell of it really was smoke, even possibly an invisible mushroom cloud that may make it too late!

     People with an apparent attention disorder, listened to FAUX SPEWS instead of focussing on what they had paid to be there to do and began to fear the fire, convinced it was happening all around them.

     And of course they started trying to convince others around them that the theatre was on fire. By then, to the FAUX SPEWS following, the fire really existed.

     And their original intent to suspend disbelief and relax, of course, morphed to becoming an ultimate hatred of why they came to the theatre in the first place-- per the FAUX SPEWS following had also grown to hate the others actually still able to watch the movie-- had shushed them; not believing in their non-existent fire...

     Now FAUX SPEWS plays in every theatre-- yelling FIRE with impunity.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/13/2009 @ 5:59pm

130. Thanks for whining yourself. I will never subscribe to this rag now. A bit of criticism from an anonymous source prompts this loon to write this crap? Good luck with the repubs in charge again next year. With friends like the Nation, we can expect a defeat.

     Posted by bamboo at 10/13/2009 @ 6:13pm

131. No matte what people said, I am telling you:

     I have not seen any presidents in the past ever scold his fellow Americans, arrogantly saying to have a teachable moment to the public, used the word 'lie' on his people in a congressional address, or have his aid calling opposition 'terrorist' 'right-wing extremenist '..... in my 20 years of life in the U.S.

     How low can he be?

     It is a shame there is a president like this no matter what country it is. And this is America...... shameful!!!!!

     Posted by ccmchang at 10/13/2009 @ 6:23pm

132. As a FOX news viewer, I say "stay away Bambi, we see enough of you on TV." If I wanted to watch you that Sunday, I certainly knew where to find you. I didn't, I don't...I'm just waiting out the years till you're gone.

     Now you must admit, liberals are very biased against conservatives, Independents, and real Democrats. How else can you get anything near balance except go to FOX? So I went from a fan of MSNBC to FOX and have no regrets. I enjoy the commentary and the real news.

     So cry away Bambi, I actually got to watch Chris Wallace and it was a great show!!

     Posted by pansycritter at 10/13/2009 @ 6:27pm

133. The Nation magazine really needs to get over itself. In defending Fox, the writer for the Nation ignores the fact that much of what Fox presents as news is factually inaccurate. This has been documented over-and-over by outlets such as Media Matters. Furthermore, the writer for The Nation would have us believe that there is a wide diversity of media opinion in America -- Left and Right. One need only look as the subscribership to the small left-wing rag, The Nation vs. the viewership of right-wing Fox to see that this is not the case.

     Posted by mtracy9 at 10/13/2009 @ 6:29pm

134. Dud:

     The so-called MSM is one in the same as left wing of the Demo Party. Fox challenges the Messiah and he whines. He is so accustomed to gentle handling that serious questions are not fair.

     The election was so slanted to our affirmative action president that his background remained nearly completely out of view. The media appointed the president

     You media people are filled with yourselves under this veil of intellectual honesty. You are arrogant, slimey and Olberman-like. Every time I read or hear a self-assessment I want to puke.

     Posted by speier at 10/13/2009 @ 6:55pm

135. "You have no right to talk about his service if you didn't bother to serve"

     why not? one can certainly criticize people who ask others to fight who never fought themselves.

     that seems fairly obvious to me.

     Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 5:56pm

     Of course it does to you Darla. You hate our military as much as any leftist around.

     Only a veteran has a right to criticize another veteran about serving.

     Men who haven't served and criticize others are doing so from a position of cowardice.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 7:04pm

136. anti-- then only US presidents can criticize other US presidents. Only lying new con repubs can criticize other lying new con repubs...

     cough-BS-cough

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/13/2009 @ 8:06pm

137. It's pretty plain to see Obama has no faith in his ideas and proposals or he would freely debate them with his "enemies." Bush had the COURAGE to go on the Today show and others where "investigative journalists" challenged him roughly. You could tell he hated it. But he did it. He stood up with his IDEALS and was much less of an accomplished speaker then Barrack. I have never seen anyhting like what these clowns at the White House are doing . The only play they and the far left have is to discredit Fox and talk radio. The problem is the more the moderates and independents see just how far they want to take us and how Facist they are becoming (chastising liberal bloggers, are you kidding me???) the more more they (moderates) will like what they are hearing from Fox. Big mistake Obama White House. This all smells like some "Foul Emanual" to me.

     Posted by danceswithtrees at 10/13/2009 @ 8:17pm

138. "You hate our military as much as any leftist around"

     ok

     "Only a veteran has a right to criticize another veteran about serving"

     really? says who? and bush, since he didn't serve....has no right to criticize, say, john kerry.

     "Men who haven't served and criticize others are doing so from a position of cowardice"

     since i'm not a man, i guess i'm free to criticize!

     fuck bush, that wussy coward!!!!!!

     Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 8:21pm

139. They should also accept an invite from PBS' Bill Moyers, who would pose tougher – and, yes, more informed -- questions than the Foxbots.

     Ha!

     Ha, HA!

     HA, HA, HA!!!

     That's the line of the year.

     Hi-$%@ing-larious!!!

     mrneige

     PS- My, you've got a lot of potty mouthed readers commenting. Doesn't speak well of your subscriber's collective IQ.

     Posted by mrneige at 10/13/2009 @ 8:26pm

140. John, it is rare that I disagree with you, but this is twice now in the past week. Sure, there have always been partisan criticisms from media voices - but only since the media consolidation that has taken place since the mid-1990's has it deserved to be called out like this. Personally, I think this should have been done long ago. Even as obvi0us as it is to many Nation readers, blatant media bias (like that from Rush Limbaugh and Fox) isn't obvious to many people, and it needs to be brought to the attention of the American people.

     Maybe in the end your recent complaints about the Obama administration will turn out to be justified, and as much as these voices in the media landscape deserve to be called out and the large conglomerates broken up, the power of the media is real - and there is only so much any administration is going to be able to do at once to correct it. Calling out Fox may be the most effective way to combat public perception. Moreover, I'd say that, this week at least, the whining is coming from you.

     Posted by mediaHawk at 10/13/2009 @ 8:26pm

141. Obama wants to talk to the Iranian holocaust deniers, even after they shot Neda down in the street to bleed to death, yet he's afraid to show up on Fox News? I guess it is nice to be able to show up on CBS ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC to worshipful adulation and soft ball questions, and certainly never challenged on anything. Isn't there room for 1 network that will actually ask a real question? Should the President of the United States be willing to do an inteview from someone who will ask a tought question. If Obama doesn't feel he can hold his own with Greta VanSustern should he ever be allowed to meet with Putin or Amedinejahd. By the way, even if you are liberal, if you are tired of the Obama worship on CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NYT, LAT, just turn to Fox News for awhile in the evening. You'll get a critical viewpoint of what Obama is doing, and a friendlier liberal viewpoint. During an evening Fox always includes those that are critical of Obama, and those that are friendly. Getting multiple points of view is the American Way!

     Posted by valwayne at 10/13/2009 @ 8:26pm

142. "Bush had the COURAGE to go on the Today show"

     funniest thing i've read all day

     Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 8:34pm

143. thanksbutnothanks is an idiot.

     CO

     Posted by colorado at 10/13/2009 @ 8:49pm

144. Beware when the president starts shooting people who disagree with him. Soon there will be more and more disagreeable people.

     Posted by stabill at 10/13/2009 @ 8:57pm

145. "Beware when the president starts shooting people who disagree with him"

     the prez hasn't said a thing about this.

     Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 9:08pm

146. by winyahn at 10/12/2009 @ 8:36pm...

     Insightful and on the mark!

     Posted by ttr at 10/13/2009 @ 2:35pm

     'preciate the 'preciation there brother. Sort of surreal that Nichols wants to knock the WH for knocking Fox. Damnable periodicals is such a weak correlate for the democracy-drowning corporate media!

     I don't think it's possible to be progressive and not understand that the military-industrial complex now has further metastasized into---> the military-industrial-media complex--->the military/DoD/ Halliburton/ Lockheed-NBC/-industrial/ corporate/ Wall St.-media/ CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, Clear Channel, CNN, NYT, FOX complex ---

     TN--Not part of solution? Say it ain't so.

     Posted by winyahn at 10/13/2009 @ 9:16pm

147. Media reform is the only hope. One approach is for anyone or any corporation using the term reporter or journalist on "news" etc to swear /promise /contract /take an oath to be accurate, honest and not to serve any other master. There can be no allegiance to shareholders or other entities. Create a consumer protection authority along the lines of Media Matters - but with authority.

     Ad revenue is allowed, but only if there is not political gaming. Courts should be given the responsibility of ensuring media outlets do not become politicized for example, accepting disproportion $/ads from one political party. Those individuals or outlets that do not can be shut down, fined, put under court supervision, etc.

     Posted by winyahn at 10/13/2009 @ 9:36pm

148. It's amusing that the Left bemoans Fox News but embraces the even more partisan MSNBC and their hit job line up featuring Olberman. In any event, I agree with John Nichols, the Obama administration needs to lighten up. For heavens sake, the president has 95% of the press media and variety talk shows in his corner, if Fox News is his problem the president can always take a que from his friend Hugo Chavez and shut them down.

     Posted by hughm8 at 10/13/2009 @ 9:47pm

149. "It's amusing that the Left bemoans Fox News but embraces the even more partisan MSNBC"

     please prove two things:

     a) how msnbc is *more* partisan than fox news

     b) that the left "embraces" msnbc

     Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 9:59pm

150. ladycatnip at 10/13/2009 @ 3:14pm : You stated that "They should not be legitmized" ?? What part of free speech don't you understand? ----- Are you kidding me? What part of the English language do you not understand. No one stated that they could not use their free speech. It was suggested that they should not be legitimized by giving them even more opportunity to distort the truth with another direct interview. I might suggest that your accusation is another form distortion. This is a perfect example of what levels that those in the Faux camp will go to to distort reality. Nice try!

     Posted by dlboggan at 10/13/2009 @ 10:09pm

151. ladycatnip: You stated: "Jesus was speaking directly to individuals, not government officials." ----- Dear God lady, what are you saying, that government officials are not human beings like yourself. Let us define arrogance - could it be some lady on catnip? And yes, you have thrown the first stone.

     Posted by dlboggan at 10/13/2009 @ 10:21pm

152. When Pesident Obama made the speech in which he said that the spreaders of lies, misinformation, and distortions would be "called out", he was widely applauded, especially by liberals - - and presumably The Nation, which tends to be more liberal than conservative. But now that Obama has begun to "call out" the distorters on Fox "News" he gets a lot of flack and is labeled by your writter as a "whiner". HOGWASH. Thanks - - for nothing. It appears that many bloggers are so (themselves) afraid of Fox "News" that they concoct all sorts of arguments indicating, for example, that the White House ought to "Get Over Itself". Craven responses to the lies of the babblers and haters like Beck and O'Reilly should be "called out" by someone who carries some weight even if the bloggers cough up excuses to run the other way. One of the Fox "News" "reporters" called liberals "cry babies" for complaining about some distortions and lies that commentators made, once again, on Fox "News". He's right - - but the cry babies aren't the people in the Obama administration or the liberals who are calling them out (for example, Olbermann and Maddow on MSNBC) , they are the commentators and bloggers who are running scared.

     Posted by hadashito at 10/13/2009 @ 10:48pm

153. Only a veteran has a right to criticize another veteran about serving"

     really? says who? and bush, since he didn't serve....has no right to criticize, say, john kerry.

     "Men who haven't served and criticize others are doing so from a position of cowardice"

     since i'm not a man, i guess i'm free to criticize!

     fuck bush, that wussy coward!!!!!!

     Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 8:21pm

     You really are a classless idiot...go chew another ganja brownie

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 11:09pm

154. It is always scary when those in the government start making overtures about the free press being out of control, etc. Obama seems to be testing the waters with his attacks on conservative outlets. Has he listened to Chavez too much?

     Posted by TrueHawk at 10/13/2009 @ 11:20pm

155. Posted by ladycatnip at 10/13/2009 @ 3:23pm

     "First of all, Obama is an extreme leftist of the socialist/Marxist pov."

     Obama is a garden variety moderate conservative. If you knew more about politics, particularly the politics of foreign countries, and spent less time listening and watching right wing media, you'd know this basic fact.

     Here's a little exercise for you. Try comparing Obama to Kucinich. Kucinich is moderate left. Now, try to imagine how Obama might compare to an actual far lefty - like me. Wasn't that fun?

     Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 5:56pm

     It's a variation of the axiom of walking a mile in someone else's shoes. I don't think I need to be a veteran to point out that Bush's tough talk about "Bring It All" stanks given the fact that he and his children never served in the military and the people backing up his bravado aren't anyone he cares about.

     However, the fact that I am a veteran does give me a little more weight when I point this out whereas people that aren't are also in the same boat as Bush - save they may or may not be talking tough.

     Posted by mrneige at 10/13/2009 @ 8:26pm

     Apparently adding !@#$^% to curse words makes it better, right? If you are going to use it, please use the genuine article.

     Posted by srjenkins at 10/14/2009 @ 12:01am

156. "You really are a classless idiot...go chew another ganja brownie"

     don't mind if i do. this batch is really strong.....

     Posted by darladoon at 10/14/2009 @ 12:19am

157. MSM Racist?

     Obama doesn't want the MSM to paternally pat him on the head like a house negro requiring their patronage to succeed. The MSM acts like racist embeds when they admit to tingles up their legs and admit they try to help Obama succeed because of the color of his skin.

     That's not progressive or post-racial, and shouldn't be tolerated.

     FOX NEWS is just doing their job and fills the vacuum.

     FOX is informed, better educated, and the women are smoking hot. Kimberly Guilfoyle is a former DA with more degrees than all the prime time news anchors of ABC, NBC and CBS combined; & they're all like that!

     We need to catch up! ... Republicans have 70% more college degrees than Democrats- both men and women- and it's been like that since 1955. If we could do that, we wouldn't need free stuff or have a national debt!

     We can make socialism work, we just need to mess with them really hard and challenge Obama to come all the way out!

     Posted by hichoc at 10/14/2009 @ 01:33am

158. I don't know about Whiner-in-Chief John. How about Neocon-in-chief. We get the fake show of how Fox hates Obama and get to hear Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity and that idiot Beck ramble on about Obama while at the same time we watch Obama appoint neocons in the financial sectors to "fix" things.

     The wool has been pulled over our eyes for too long. The leaders in D.C. are nothing more than figureheads taking orders from their corporate bosses. The U.S. government and big business are one and the same. We've been sold out folks. Perhaps the world will be better off with a weaker U.S. and perhaps redistributing the wealth of the U.S. isn't a bad thing. But, what seems to be going on is that our leaders are more worried about international affairs than the welfare of the People of the United States. Hell, even insurance companies come before the people in our representative's eyes.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/14/2009 @ 07:32am

159. Posted by hichoc at 10/14/2009 @ 01:33bm

     So even if what you stated were true, which I doubt, it's curious why most people then that vote for repubs are the less educated rich white protestants?

     http://tinyurl.com/yxa6yu

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/14/2009 @ 07:38am

160. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/14/2009 @ 07:32am

     "You go to war with the Army you have."?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/14/2009 @ 07:46am

161. er, it's curious why most people then that vote for repubs are the less educated rich white protestants 'from the south'?

     (And which, more than most, attend church more regularly, don't believe in evolution or most science, but do also have faith in FAUX SPEWS!)

     Curiouser and curiouser-- NOT!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/14/2009 @ 08:08am

162. (And which, more than most, attend church more regularly, don't believe in evolution or most science, but do also have faith in FAUX SPEWS!)

     Curiouser and curiouser-- NOT!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/14/2009 @ 08:08am

     A good majority of these morons vote the way their pastor tells them to vote. I have yet to meet a liberal white southern baptist pastor. I hear Jimmy Carter is one, but I'd still have to see it to believe it.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/14/2009 @ 08:32am

163. it's curious why most people then that vote for repubs are the less educated rich white protestants?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/14/2009 @ 07:38am |

     Wasn't it Harry Truman who belittled his opponent for talking with college professors while he talked with the common people. Didn't he say, "It turns out that there were a lot more taxi drivers than college professors"?

     Posted by Mistral at 10/14/2009 @ 08:54am

164. Beck now has a red phone on a pedestal (The White House Hotline) that only Anita and her assistant has the # to, so they can call and whine and bitch right away if he gets his facts wrong.

     Haven't called yet. Guess he's right.

     Call Anita, let's chat!

     Posted by StoneyGardener at 10/14/2009 @ 09:43am

165. The usurper in chief will NOT answer questions unless they are pre-screened. I have a few for him: 1. Where were you born? "Hawaii"? Well, we know the birthplace of all the recent presidents, where is yours? Honolulu? Which hospital? The two hospitals operating in 1961 have no records on him. The house his parents claimed as their residence has no record of them ever living there. 2. Why have you spent 1.5 million dollars paid to a Washington DC law firm to block any release of any college records, passport records, Ill-noise state legislative records, parent's divorce records, nada. 3. When we make Barry's birthplace a National Historic Site, will it be in Hawaii or Kenya? 4. Are you OK with you replacing Austin Powers as the new "International Man of Mystery"?

     I have more but I guess those will take him more than 4 years to answer.

     Posted by Jimmii at 10/14/2009 @ 11:46am

166. The day you can show that you served in the military is the day you can address Bush's military service. Until then, shut up! You have no right to talk about his service if you didn't bother to serve.

     And your posts are constant revisionist history. I'm still waiting for you to get anything right about history.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 4:56pm

     Larry, using your logic your god, Dick Cheney should never be able to discuss anyone's service record either, or ever decide to send Americans into harms way. But I'm sure you don't feel that way about the man who got five deferments during Vietnam and never served a day in his life. Yet you still praise his war mongering ways, because they are perfectly in sync with your own.

     Regardless of the fact I have never served, you have no right to deny me the ability to speak about Bush's military "record." He was my President and I can discuss anything about him I want, so why don't YOU shut up. I grew up in a military family (my father was in the Army, Army AirCorps and Air Force for over thirty years and was in WWII and a base commander during Vietnam) and I respect the military immensely; probably more than you because I don't want to see Americans get killed in Bush's war of choice.

     You don't have the right to tell anyone to shut up about Bush's military service or lack thereof. The military is built to service the civilian population, and regardless of service, I am a civilian, so I DO have the right to discuss anyone's service, especially the President's. There's a reason the President as CIC is a civilian and I would expect you, a man who supposedly respects the Constitution, to know that. So take off your blinders. And BTW, I'm still waiting for you to get anything right about the Constitution

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/14/2009 @ 11:58am

167. Where's the "I Like It!" button on this page!?!

     Posted by StoneyGardener at 10/14/2009 @ 12:08pm

168. Hasn't anyone noticed that in "Correcting" the quote it was said that the WH was not upset at the GAY dissenters but at ALL Leftwing dissent!!!

     In telling the people that the WH was not down on the LBGT protestors the admin declared that any and all dissent regarding Guantanamo, Health Crae, Afghanistan AND Gay rights was out of place. Leftist Gay Barney Frank even tossed his own community under the bus and told them to act LOCALLY instead of embarassing the Messiah in Chief.

     Read more at <a href="http://hereticscrusade.com">Heretics Crusade</a>

     Posted by HereticsCrusade at 10/14/2009 @ 12:54pm

169. Wasn't it Harry Truman who belittled his opponent for talking with college professors while he talked with the common people. Didn't he say, "It turns out that there were a lot more taxi drivers than college professors"? Posted by Mistral at 10/14/2009 @ 08:54am

     Well that depends where you live of course. Boston or Austin could be the other way around... As well, apparently Obama's winning may be an exception to the rule where most of both the college educated and the non, agreed.

     Now if we could only get the delusional believers in FAUX SPEWS to take their meds, I'd be way more optimistic.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 10/14/2009 @ 1:08pm

170. Posted by Jimmii at 10/14/2009 @ 11:46am

     Silly conspiracy theories. He wasn't born in Kenya. Someplace in Scandinavia, maybe, but not Kenya.

     Posted by Mistral at 10/14/2009 @ 1:12pm

171. Just so there is no mistake, the previous post was a JOKE. I don't seriously mean to suggest that the President was born in Scandinavia. It was a joke, probably having something to do with the recent Nobel Prize.

     Thank you for your support.

     Posted by Mistral at 10/14/2009 @ 1:13pm

172. The ultimate goal of FoxNews is NOT to deliver "fair and balanced" news, but to actively advocate for government policies that would disproportionately favor corporate interest over the interest of the American people. FoxNews is dedicated to the promotion of hatred and the de-legitimization of our president. Fox will only report exactly what it's partisan viewers want to believe….that's not news….that's indoctrination.

     Posted by chitown639 at 10/14/2009 @ 1:45pm

173. This white house makes Nixon look positively open and reasonable.

     But I keep waiting for someone to show a clip of any Fox News program that was factually wrong. You really can't say that about the state run media, and they are the only outlet not controlled by the Democratic Party or their sponsors.

     Posted by noMOREtv4u at 10/14/2009 @ 2:10pm

174. It's been so surprising that the WH has shown such thin skin. Can you imagine how Nixonian they would be if the attacks came from all sides as they did toward Bush? Picking on FoxNews (which makes me watch it more, and I'm an independent) is downright hilarious! It is of course GOP-centric, but no more than CNN, MSNBC, or the formerly important main channels are Democratic mouthpieces. Most people who watch these channels know exactly the bias they are seeing.

     Posted by indacenter at 10/14/2009 @ 3:42pm

175. I am also on "the right", though I am hardly a "wingnut". That's not to say that "wingnuts" don't exist. They exist as surely as "liberal loons" exist and, if I'm not mistaken, both of them make their weekend homes at Wal-Mart (a place that I'd sooner die than visit).It's just that my perspective of the world is different. That's all. There's nothing sinister to it. It's no different than any other perspective or preference that I have - and am entitled to have. The simple fact is that we do not know - conclusively or otherwise - whether conservatism or liberalism works because over the course of history, we have tried both (as have myriad other nations) and the last time I checked, we were not living in a perfect world, nirvana, heaven or any manner of Vallhalla. The problem is not "right" or "left" or Fox of MSNBC or Bush or Obama. The problem is that the world is governed by the rich and powerful (be they liberal or conservative) and that they are obscenely (if not inherently) corrupt. There are no degrees to corruption. One is either corrupt or honest. We need to stop splitting hairs.

     Posted by Dragonspray at 10/14/2009 @ 3:52pm

176. can anyone recommend a good spiro agnew biography? if he hadn't been framed by the liberal media, we might not be faced with the kinds of problems we face as a nation today. agnew was tough, and a leader. nixon was lost without him, and with his resignation, the "liberal coup" was complete. our great nation has suffered from 35 straight years of liberal rule, & the consequences have been devastating (look at the records of sandra day o'connor & david souter & then try to tell me that reagan & bush I were conservative; bush II lacked the guts to dismantle the welfare state, & should have realized that the real Saddam Hussein and WMD are right here in the United States: the Democrats & liberal media who sabatoged Agnew & got this country off track, perhaps permanently). what this country needs is a far-sighted general who sees a job that needs doing, and just does it. we don't need sarah palin or any other kind of family values media circus. we need an iron fist.

     Posted by jasonrhodes at 10/14/2009 @ 5:00pm

177. Obama has been whining since he finally figured out that not everyone in the United States is goo goo eyed over him, the way he dresses, the way he walks, the way he eats dijon mustard on his hamburgers, and the way he constantly refers everything of value in this world is himself. When every liberal media and comedy show was bashing Palin and her family 24/7 relentlessly, in the most horrible vulgar way possible, I didn't hear Obama, his staff, his liberal suck-up media, or any Democrat say, "That is going too far and we want it stopped." Even when Letterman said those horrible vulgar mean things about Palin's daughters, Palin didn't whine. She did however go on one of the liberal channels and put her foot down and told them this was going to stop. She let them know if they had to attack to keep it between her and them, but like Obama, the children are off limits. Also, for eight years we heard horrible trashy things said about President Bush and First Lady Laura from all the liberal media (MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and more. Bush continued with class and strength to go on his interviews with ALL the liberal media and he took it like a man with grace. During the campaign, why didn't SNL make up a story saying Obama could see Canada from his house and try to portray he was stupid? They could have even put something he really did say like he visited 57 states, but they didn't. They covered for him for over two whole years and to this day. A lot of people to this day still believe Sarah Palin really said she could see Russia from her house, that when it was proven she didn't by factcheck.com which is liberal. Yeah, I would say that Obama has been more than a wasteful whiny brat. He is not honorable or mature enough to take this job and do it justice.

     Posted by DavM56 at 10/14/2009 @ 6:40pm

178. Making a conscious decision to ignore a media outlet that has proven, though ratings, that it carries an overtly popular (if not majority) opinion is not only unconscionable, it's borderline foolish.

     Fortunately for our autocrat-in-chief, our system of majority rule vanished some thirty years past, pushed aside by the squeeky wheels and whiners, making way for the success of the foolhardy.

     Posted by tresimple at 10/14/2009 @ 7:02pm

179. I don't see Obama as president 2012,uhh, no public option,more troops,etc... In 2010 some democrats will lose the chair,too much BS eaters.

     Posted by robert-o at 10/14/2009 @ 8:28pm

180. As President, Mr. Obama represents every American not just those at CBS, NBC and CNN. My son dropped out his senior year of college to join the Army and is currently deployed somewhere in Afghanistan. It's amazing to me how young men like him can consistently show more character, leadership, and courage under fire than their commader-in-chief.

     Posted by ProudParent at 10/14/2009 @ 9:10pm

181. I'm amazed at the contrast between the Obama: Brilliant Campaign / Bumbling, Inept Administration: Obama Campaign: though I disagree agree with most of Obama's policies, I'm the first to admit that his was a campaign with a flawless message, communications and overall political strategy. The consistency and continuity of every aspect of the message was maintained with a military-like discipline (that I wish the McCain campaign had! ...uggh). Obama Administration? ....Wow. I'm incredulous with the (now laundry) list of follies that has accumulated from this White House from a pure PR / Communications standpoint(to say nothing of the WH Political strategy, of which I'm much more qualified to analyze than Press strategy but I won't...lol): the number of truly idiotic, foolish and self-defeating/self-destructive things defy comphrension -- you don't need a grad degree in Communications or Journalism to know that as a PRESIDENTIAL Administration (Most small town mayoral administrations wouldn't do half the things this White House has done)

     you just DONT...

     -Single out and Attack a News Organization: That law of how you get attention -- attack an attention-getter? The reverse of that is also is true, earth toWhite House morons! (Remember when Nixon put the media in their place...? wait........ yeah, attacking the media worked out well for him...)

     -Set up an Enemies List "fishy information" website (that one was my personal favorite)

     .......and the list goes on! It truly is amateur hour at the WH PR Shop

     Posted by BP_1994 at 10/14/2009 @ 9:20pm

182. Nichols = racist.

     Posted by gangpapist at 10/14/2009 @ 9:54pm

183. by BP_1994 at 10/14/2009 @ 9:20pm...

     Follies?

     How's that legacy working out for GWB?

     Obama is still standing... still making headway... still picking up the pieces and debris left over from George's 'little party'... is testimony to Barak's intent, his perseverance, and his faith in the American people.

     Considering the realities of Obama's approach to bipartisanship and governance... one can only wonder at the childishness of a propaganda machine like FOX... as it endlessly complains about 'scary far left fantasies' coming to America to roost at the behest of a neophyte outsider ...

     ...when all the while... Obama has done more to include 'the right' than his base can comfortably deal with... and Obama will probably continue to do so without any acknowledgement or support from FOX... just further abuse, tantrums, and finger-pointing...

     ...and no one mentions the obvious... fact... that Bush never listened to anyone he didn't already agree with... EVER.

     Anything to win... eh, boys? Or is it anything but the truth...

     FOX wants it both ways... but Obama is going right up the middle.

     Which one is the true conservative? Which one is the loony tunes radical?

     Sheds a whole new light on the last eight years now... doesn't it?;^)

     Posted by ttr at 10/14/2009 @ 10:40pm

184. There are no degrees to corruption. One is either corrupt or honest. We need to stop splitting hairs.

     Posted by Dragonspray at 10/14/2009 @ 3:52pm

     Couldn't agree more.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/15/2009 @ 06:01am

185. The day you can show that you served in the military is the day you can address Bush's military service. Until then, shut up! You have no right to talk about his service if you didn't bother to serve.

     And your posts are constant revisionist history. I'm still waiting for you to get anything right about history.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 4:56pm

     Good God you are an Ahole anti. What the hell does serving or not serving have to do with calling W on hiding out in the reserves during Vietnam and also not even showing up for his duty assignments when he was supposed to be there?

     OK, I did my time in the Air Force, so I guess, by your rational, I have the right to call W the phony militaristic blowhard along with his 5 deferment radical warrior tough talkin Dickless Cheney . To steal a line from the movie Das Boat, the GOP leaders are all full of wind and smoke. They talk tough when the going gets tough and send others to do their toughness for them.

     I can't believe you are so delusional not to see this.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/15/2009 @ 06:13am

186. "Follies?

     How's that legacy working out for GWB?

     Posted by ttr at 10/14/2009 @ 10:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person"

     I might be missing something here, but where do you see any sort of connection between George W. Bush's legacy.....and the Obama Adminisration's Communications/Press strategy...??

     It sounds like you just really wanted to go off on GWB. That's fine, but it really makes no sense in connection to anything in my post.

     Posted by BP_1994 at 10/15/2009 @ 06:21am

187. liberal media (MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and more

     Posted by DavM56 at 10/14/2009 @ 6:40pm

     Dan Rather was the one bad apple at CBS. After the forgery scandal they fired him and now CBS is unbiased.

     Posted by Mistral at 10/15/2009 @ 08:12am

188. Dan Rather was the one bad apple at CBS. After the forgery scandal they fired him and now CBS is unbiased.

     Posted by Mistral at 10/15/2009 @ 08:12am

     CBS is unbiased?

     Schieffer is a liberal Democrat

     Couric is a liberal Democrat

     Harry Smith is a liberal Democrat

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 08:54am

189. CBS is unbiased?

     Schieffer is a liberal Democrat

     Couric is a liberal Democrat

     Harry Smith is a liberal Democrat

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 08:54am

     It was sarcasm, the weapon of choice for the non-violent.

     Posted by Mistral at 10/15/2009 @ 09:04am

190. There is a group of Americans that are insanely angry that Barack Obama was elected president. That angry group of Americans has become the enemy within our borders whose mission is to de-legitimize the president and undermine the operation of our government at every turn simply to ruin the Obama presidency. There's nothing that Obama could do that the angry group would agree with, because they are obligated to oppose him regardless of the public weal. So the rest of us are stuck with this angry group clinging to our legs trying to trip us every step of the way as the president tries to move us forward as our country faces historically dire economic woes and intensely sensitive international conflicts.

     Fox News is at the heart of the angry group movement, playing on the fears and anxieties that some Americans have about the "other" Americans. Fox News routinely sows the seeds of fear and panic into the minds of many of its viewers that were already nervous about one of the "others" being elected president. The hate-mongering and constant demonizing of President Obama by Fox News is what their viewers want. The Fox viewers want to be told that their initial gut feeling of fear and outrage at the prospect of one of the "others" being elected president was correct. Fox News viewers want to be told that the country is doomed because the "others" have taken over, so the time to stockpile weapons and rebel is now. Fox News is playing a key role into transforming an insanely angry group of Americans into a violently angry group of Americans Whatever happened to that patriotic slogan some members in the angry group were chanting just one year ago...."COUNTRY FIRST"?

     Posted by chitown639 at 10/15/2009 @ 10:13am

191. There is a group of Americans that are insanely angry

     Posted by chitown639 at 10/15/2009 @ 10:13am

     Well, maybe they were angry, but since the President was awarded the Stanley Cup their angry rhetoric has been drowned out by giggles.

     Posted by Mistral at 10/15/2009 @ 11:36am

192. by BP_1994 at 10/15/2009 @ 06:21am...

     Now that he's in...

     It ain't about spin.

     Posted by ttr at 10/15/2009 @ 12:13pm

193. I agree with Obama administration on this one. I do not view Fox as legitimate news network. Virtually everywhere where Murdoch has footprint in terms of print media or TV network, he has used his media machinery to right wing causes. I do not accept John Nichols notion that media always anti-establishment. This suggestion is extremely naive and not consistent with facts during this administration or the administration before that.

     Posted by kevin99999 at 10/15/2009 @ 1:00pm

194. Some of what Nichols says is correct. And some ....

     The administration is right that Fox is not a legitimate news outlet. But what Obama should do is sit down for an interview and, to each question, simply read off a bunch of corrections to lies that Fox told, or read transcripts from Bill O'Reilly's sexual harassment suit. Will they cut off the president? What if they do?

     The aide is right about too many bloggers. Consider The Huffington Post, which is wonderful and has some fine reporters but publishes mostly links to reporting by others, and then we get Arianna Huffington writing possibly the dumbest commentary in the history of the liberal media, that Joe Biden should resign if he doesn't get his way on Afghanistan. Too many bloggers--not all, but certainly most, left and right--do no reporting but simply spout off. That is exactly what Eric Alterman pointed out was one of George Will's great failings as a columnist--no reporting experience, and thus no comprehension of how facts come together. It can be as true of columnists as it is of bloggers.

     Posted by Michael Green at 10/15/2009 @ 1:07pm

195. Posted by Mistral at 10/15/2009 @ 11:36am |

     Okay, two surreality points for you.

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/16/2009 @ 07:16am

196. Okay, two surreality points for you.

     Posted by snowball777 at 10/16/2009 @ 07:16am

     Oh, sorry, my mistake, I meant to say "Pulitzer Prize"!

     Posted by Mistral at 10/16/2009 @ 08:54am

197. I've noticed that Fox critics never give specific examples of bias. Then again, I guess it is bias to expose A White House advisor who says her favorite political philosophers are Mao and Mother Theresa. And this is the woman who is intrusted with WH communications? The female Goebbels? Funny, never thought of the man who murdered millions as a political philospher. Beck is emotional, but if that is the greatest spec libs can find in his eye, they had better start getting the beams out of their own eyes, or challenge his statements with facts, which they rarely if ever do. Citing anonymous sources or making empirical statements without substantiating them doesn't fly.

     Posted by ghor at 10/16/2009 @ 12:18pm

198. In reading some of these posts, perhaps a little reminder: you are entitled to your opinons but not your own facts. "Quantula sapientia blogatur mundus."

     Scotty, beam me up. There is no intelligent life on this planet.

     Posted by ghor at 10/16/2009 @ 12:42pm

199. Posted by ghor at 10/16/2009 @ 12:18pm

     See http://mediamatters.org/ for over 1000 specific examples of bias.

     # Beck hosts officer of medical group that pushed Vince Foster conspiracy theories to attack Hillary Clinton over vaccines October 16, 2009 6:55 pm ET filed under MMtv # Doctor in Beck panel urges Americans to visit tea party organizer site "FreedomWorks.org" to stop "government takeover of medicine" October 16, 2009 6:34 pm ET filed under MMtv # Beck (!) says McCarthy was a "nightmare" because he "made cries of communism a joke" October 16, 2009 4:47 pm ET filed under Blog # On MSNBC, Wash. Post's Capehart says it's "ironic" that GOP and Hannity have "hounded" Jennings for his "good work" October 16, 2009 3:44 pm ET filed under MMtv # Limbaugh follows Beck's lead on Anita Dunn smear October 16, 2009 3:13 pm ET filed under MMtv # NY Times article ignores anti-gay bigotry and smears at heart of attacks on Jennings October 16, 2009 3:06 pm ET filed under Research # Fox's Huckabee declares 17th Amendment (popular election of senators) "one of the dumbest things we ever did" October 16, 2009 2:04 pm ET filed under MMtv # Paging Glenn Beck: Norquist hung a portrait of Lenin in his Washington living room October 16, 2009 1:59 pm ET filed under Blog # USA Today claims Obama attacked Fox News "viewers" October 16, 2009 12:15 pm ET filed under Blog # Beck claims Dunn's job is to "watch Fox News and destroy" October 16, 2009 11:19 am ET filed under MMtv # Will Beck attack Fox News' Gingrich for citing Mao? October 16, 2009 11:11 am ET filed under Blog # Hannity lauds GOP fruits of his smear campaign against Jennings October 16, 2009 10:48 am ET filed under MMtv # Beck-led Fox News "czar" witch hunt moves to ridiculous smear of Anita Dunn October 16, 2009 8:47 am ET fil

     Posted by winyahn at 10/16/2009 @ 7:38pm

200. Mr. Nichols, you are an idiot. Defend Fox News' legitimacy as a news organization at your own peril. It only proves how shallow your own standards are. You would undoubtedly hate it if someone were to suggest that your column is not authentic news, if someone were to suggest that it is merely an opinion piece. But it is. And Fox News Channel is. That is the problem with way too much of the current news cycle. As much as I hate to play psycho-analyst, I smell fear in much of media's handling of this story, and in your piece in particular. I think that you fear that if Fox is called out for what it is by this administration, well, then you might be called out for what you are with different administration. News is not the same as commentary. Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying people are not allowed to have opinions. Of course they are. But, please, lets not call it news. Let's call it what it is. Commentary. Fox News is nothing more than conservative commentary. If you don't know this, then what--might I ask--do you know? And I'm not saying this as a stalwart Obama supporter. I am certainly not that, but I do think he got this one right. One last question, do you see Pravada as legitimate new organization? By your standards, I'm guessing yes.

     Posted by JohnD88888 at 10/16/2009 @ 8:16pm

201. Mr. Nichols, you are an idiot. Defend Fox News' legitimacy as a news organization at your own peril. It only proves how shallow your own standards are. You would undoubtedly hate it if someone were to suggest that your column is not authentic news, if someone were to suggest that it is merely an opinion piece. But it is. And Fox News Channel is. That is the problem with way too much of the current news cycle. As much as I hate to play psycho-analyst, I smell fear in much of the media's handling of this story, and in your piece in particular. I think that you fear that if Fox is called out for what it is by this administration, well, then you might be called out for what you are with different administration. News is not the same as commentary. Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying people are not allowed to have opinions. Of course they are. But, please, lets not call it news. Let's call it what it is. Commentary. Fox News is nothing more than conservative commentary. If you don't know this, then what--might I ask--do you know? And I'm not saying this as a stalwart Obama supporter. I am certainly not that, but I do think he got this one right. One last question, do you see Pravada as a legitimate new organization? By your standards, I'm guessing yes.

     Posted by JohnD88888 at 10/16/2009 @ 8:23pm

202. "If the Fox interviewers are absurdly unfair, the American people will respond with appropriate consternation." Is this a joke? Where have you been? Ever hear of the term swift-vote? People like you wanna to make life far too easy for people like Karl Rove. More often than not, Manipulation Works. How can you work in the media and not know this? It's simply mind-boggling.

     Posted by JohnD88888 at 10/16/2009 @ 8:32pm

203. Does John Nichols spend much time wathcing Fox News? Spend a day with it, and then decide whether the White House and the nation would be well served by making itself available to Fox News. There may be places for partisan news outlets, but for a major news channel to be so unabashedly partisan is a national disgrace, and should be recognized as such. Its a comedy channel, and until it stops its adolescent posturings and treats the news seriously a Democratic White House should make no offers in its direction.

     Posted by mikalcharles at 10/17/2009 @ 07:02am

204. I don't know when I last read a Nichols post that I could respect. In this one he shows some sanity, and even better, the courage to break from the pack.

     I would like to add, Nichols turns out to be a fair guy, and I may have done him an injustice, but that would be going too far.

     He says, "Fox hosts do go overboard in their savaging of Obama and the Democrats". That would be an acceptable as an honest opinion from the left, if he had ever, in the past eight years said, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc., had gone overboard in their savaging of George Bush. We have just had those networks attributing totally bogus quotes to Rush Limbaugh. Has Nichols complained about those excesses?

     Posted by Pirovano at 10/17/2009 @ 5:57pm

205. Q: Who said it first? "First, the president and his aides decide to go to war against Fox News..."

     A: Mr. Nichols

     Q: Who said it next?

     A: FOX NEWS: "Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare **WAR** (my hyperbolic caps & asterisks) on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, health care and two wars.

     Back at Reality Ranch: The WH did not use the word war. Did not use synonyms for war, did not gesture or gesticulate in a war-like manner.

     Posted by winyahn at 10/18/2009 @ 8:56pm