Rendell takes on network news luminaries

Rendell is wrong. From Frank Rich's New York Times OpEd column today:
" . . . as George Mason University’s Center for Media and Public Affairs documented in its study of six weeks of TV news reports this summer, Obama’s coverage was 28 percent positive, 72 percent negative. (For McCain, the split was 43/57.) Even McCain’s most blatant confusions, memory lapses and outright lies still barely cause a ripple, whether he’s railing against a piece of pork he in fact voted for, as he did at the Saddleback Church pseudodebate last weekend, or falsifying crucial details of his marital history in his memoirs, as The Los Angeles Times uncovered in court records last month.?

from Min Yee, forrmer Boston Globe reporter, 1960s

Rendell evidently never once watched CNN, Fox, Joe Scar-burro, Pat Robertson, Wolf, Jessica Yellin, Candy Crowley, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hanni-teats, Campbell Brown, George Stephocacus, Carville, Begala, Andrea Mitchell, and most others. He must have only watched Hardball and Countdown 24x7 is all I can guess.

Rendell should be THANKING the media for repeating Hillary's anti-Obama smears throughout the campaign, which gave them undeserved weight; and for echoing her pitifully managed campaign's fantasy, to this day, that Obama is the one who played dirty and that SHE is the one who is owed an apology.
The public is way out front of Rendell and the media on this one. It didn't work in the primary, and it won't work now.

Min Yee, you missed the point completely! Rendell was talking about the primaries. That's BEFORE the summer. George Mason University's study is about TV reports in the summer!!!!!!! The problem with the media is due to feeble-minded reporters like you! You seem to believe that your view is the people's view. Pardon me. I would hate to be represented by idiots like you.

Rendell is right about the media and I admire his courage to confront the media. Most politicians rely on the media to reach the public and so would succumb to their demands and ridiculous opinions. One reason the media is so biased against the Clintons is because the Clintons did not befriend them. (Read Carroll's opinion in today's Globe. He piled all of Bush's failures on Bill Clinton, treated him like a tumor to be cut off. Bill Clinton is the only successful Democratic president in recent memory and this is what he got for his hard work! Shame on Carroll! Shame on the Democrats! If I were the Clintons, I would have quit the party and started my own. )

Interesting the difference in reporting you get on Rendall's comments.

Here it sounds like his major criticisms were of Stephanopoulos and Brokaw. On Politico it appeas his criticism is of Matthews and Olbermann . Any one know where there is a transcript?

It's time for the Hillary Clinton to grow up and stop whining. She lost. She ran a poor campaign and she lost. It's time for her to let go of behavior that demeans the rest of us who work hard to achieve our goals. There is no doubt that there is sexism in this nation. But, she knew that before she even started. Did she think that she would be different and overcome all the chauvinism that's been heaped on women to varying degrees for eons? If so, then she is too naive to have been president anyway.

Let's see, commentary from Min Yee, ex Boston Globe nee NY TImes, quoting Frank Rich - the man who takes the mantra's of campaigns and respins them over and over, and George Mason University, that conservative bastion outside the beltway. No mention of Fox here.

Judith Krain,

You are the sorriest loser I have ever seen! You are saying that there is sexism in this country -- live with it! Are you really a woman????? Or are you a man called Judith???? Hillary is not whining. She is fighting back, albeit a bit late. Her mistake was not running a poor campaign. Her mistake was to have played nice with Obama. Men are not nice in competition. Hillary should have hit him (and all other candidates) hard right from the start. Now McCain is hitting Obama and this ill-equipped "young" man is going to roll over and die.

MK:
With all due respect, exactly when did Hillary "play nice" with Obama?
I'm serious. I'd really like to know.
Was it when she compared John McCain's foreign policy credentials favorably with his?
Was it when she called him "elitist" and "out of touch"?
Was it when she ridiculed his campaign as "hope you can xerox"?
Was it when she claimed she was the Democrat who had the support of "hard working people, white people"?
Or was it when she told 60 Minutes that he wasn't a Muslim, "as far as I know"?
Maybe I missed it. It seems to me that her self-acknowledged "kitchen sink" attack strategy kicked in as soon as she fell behind, continued long after she had any chance of winning the nomination, and has done damage to the party that we can only hope is not irreprable.
Instead of lashing out and calling people names and acting like a spoiled child, be specific.
Or do you really dispute the fact that Hillary grossly mis-managed and bankrupted a campaign that started with a half-billion dollar war chest and a 30-point head start in the polls, and has fallen back on this pitiful "victim" personna that is an insult to all women and all feminists?
How far do you think Geraldine Ferraro set back the equal rights agenda with her assinine remarks? Is that the approach you are proud of, and find heroic?
"Ready on day one?"
Please.
For all her boasting about her superior battle-tested preparedness, all Hillary proved in the primary season was that she still wasn't ready, 18 months into the fight.