Democrats say no to Fox and Yes to Keith Olbermann

JaJae · 07-18-2007, 12:14 AM

Keith Olbermann, whose biting, pull-no-punches commentaries on MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” have been known to spike the blood pressure of their targets—ask Fox News’ belligerent right-winger Bill O’Reilly—will moderate the AFL-CIO Presidential Candidates Forum in Chicago on Aug. 7. The forum, with the seven leading Democratic candidates, will be broadcast live from 6 p.m.-7:30 p.m. CDT (7 p.m.-8:30 p.m. EDT) on MSNBC and XM Satellite Radio.

This is getting absurd. When do the Republicans get their debate with Rush Limbaugh and tell MSNBC to go scratch? Well that's ok right, I mean there's still going to be questions from the audience no? Well the entire audience is going to be comprised of solely union workers.

The forum is a key part of an intensive six-month program to engage union members and their families in the AFL-CIO’s presidential endorsement decision-making process. Beginning in April, the AFL-CIO held town hall meetings in cities across the United States with presidential candidates to discuss issues of vital importance to working families like health care, jobs, retirement security, trade policy and the freedom to form and join unions.

AFL-CIO Weblog | Olbermann to Host AFL-CIO Working Families Vote Presidential Forum

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. Olbermann has two options here, he can host an honest debate or he can give softballs as usual to Democrats.

If he gives only softballs Fox and Republicans will be all over him and could possibly hurt him. If he doesn't give softballs his ultra-liberal base will probably get pissed off at him. I think it'll be interesting to see how it turns out. He's going to be walking a very fine line.

kinggovernor · 07-18-2007, 12:45 AM

organized labor has such a strangle hold on this country

6SpeedTA95 · 07-18-2007, 01:06 AM

I'm sorry but this is just hilarious.

Donkey® · 07-18-2007, 01:06 AM

They can do whatever they want.

JaJae · 07-18-2007, 02:09 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I'm sorry but this is just hilarious.

When they did the first debate he did the pre-show and aftershow so biased it wasn't even funny. People on here said, well it wasn't the real debate so it's ok, blah blah blah. MSNBC would never let him do the real debate, they know his role, yaddie yadda. This really just goes to show how far left MSNBC has been getting and they're not even trying to hide it. Sure he helps their ratings, but they're destroying their credibility as a reliable news network. Fox handles their debates better than this crap. Fox has a lot of opinion shows, I'll admit to that. Their news shows are becoming limited, but at least they make an attempt to separate the two. MSNBC has essentially made Olbermann a guest anchor and now they're using him to host a presidential debate. How absurd.

JaJae · 07-18-2007, 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

They can do whatever they want.

Sure they can. Just like Fox News can hire Rush Limbaugh and fill the audience with card carrying NRA members to host a Republican presidential debate. And if they ever did that there'd be a thread about that too.

Sadly only the opinion shows on Fox News would ever talk about this on TV media. There seems to be very little checks and balances on cable news for liberal outlets. If Fox tried to do something this absurd every news show would be talking about right down to the View and the other morning shows.

Thorgrim · 07-18-2007, 02:29 AM

The only thing that is hilarious is that people are confused that union debate will be comprised of questions from union members

Fox has proven to be anti-democrat, and their fans are the most overwhelming republican voting demographic in existance...It'd be like if John Kerry spent all his time in 2004 campaigning in Utah

Keith is progressive...and I believe it was the unions choice? Rush wouldn't make a great moderator because he's an entertainer and an extremist, someone like George Will, a die-hard Nixon conservative...I don't think I'd have a big problem if he moderated a REPUBLICAN debate?

DosEquis · 07-18-2007, 10:45 AM

They could have a rush limbo'hannity do the debate, but I am not sure how many "In which ways would you compare yourself to Ronald Reagan?" questions I could tolerate.

Besides, conservatives already lost their soft ball pitcher Jeff Gannon a long time ago.

Oh, and I disagree. I dont think his 'liberal base' will be pissed at him if he asks tough questions. Any reasonable person (like myself

) would like to see every candidate, republican, democrat, or otherwise pressed on all the issues. The idea in this case is to pick the best democrat (Joe Biden) to run the country. I think Keith probably views it as such (i hope) and will ask the tough questions.

Donkey® · 07-18-2007, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Sure they can. Just like Fox News can hire Rush Limbaugh and fill the audience with card carrying NRA members to host a Republican presidential debate. And if they ever did that there'd be a thread about that too.

Sadly only the opinion shows on Fox News would ever talk about this on TV media. There seems to be very little checks and balances on cable news for liberal outlets. If Fox tried to do something this absurd every news show would be talking about right down to the View and the other morning shows.

Sure, there would be a thread about it...but it would be as whiny and dumb as this one

thomez · 07-18-2007, 10:51 AM

he was a lot better on Sportscenter

ballz2wallz · 07-18-2007, 11:08 AM

garbagemanlb · 07-18-2007, 11:57 AM

I like how you said Fox could hire Rush....as if he is any worse than their current hosts.

I'm glad the Democrats won't go on Fox, which is blatantly biased against them.

CNN and MSNBC don't have nearly the same level of bias (Tucker, Scarborough, Lou Dobbs, anyone?) as Fox does.

to them.

Scrum · 07-18-2007, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Sure they can. Just like Fox News can hire Rush Limbaugh and fill the audience with card carrying NRA members to host a Republican presidential debate. And if they ever did that there'd be a thread about that too.

Like the one you started here?

JaJae · 07-18-2007, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Like the one you started here?

Uh yea... that's the point of my statement.

Thorgrim · 07-18-2007, 02:26 PM

I still think the statement is flawed by complaining that a AFL-CIO debate is full of questions by AFL-CIO members...I mean...seriously...

JaJae · 07-18-2007, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I still think the statement is flawed by complaining that a AFL-CIO debate is full of questions by AFL-CIO members...I mean...seriously...

Well it's full of questions by union members and Keith Olbermann. The format of the debate is Keith Olbermann as the host. And when he isn't reading the questions he'll be taking questions from the audience who are only going to be union members. I recognize the audience will play a relatively small role in the overall of the debate, but it's noteworthy to mention.

Thorgrim · 07-18-2007, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Well it's full of questions by union members and Keith Olbermann. The format of the debate is Keith Olbermann as the host. And when he isn't reading the questions he'll be taking questions from the audience who are only going to be union members. I recognize the audience will play a relatively small role in the overall of the debate, but it's noteworthy to mention.

You're taking some select facts, and putting them together to make it look like the worst thing you possibly can...

Take out the union thing...since it's a union debate and I think union members would be insulted if they lost their seat and voice to people who aren't even sponsoring the debate

Now we have "Keith Olbermann is the host of a Democratic debate, and they said no to Fox!"

Well, we had a big thread (on here not DIAC I believe) on the #984759874 reasons why Fox would be a horrible idea for democrats, AND you shouldn't legitimize an organization for its one-sided errors and intentional remarks against Democrats while they claim to be fair and balanced

On the KO part, its just one debate and he's been asked by the union...with no real progressive in the race, I fail to see how he is going to "give them softballs" if he is as liberal as you say he is...

While KO's views he's expressed, almost all of them from what I've seen would have popular support in the polls, but someone like Rush or Coulter would be in the 5-10% range...totally different

I remember watching him cover the 2006 election night and I thought he was very unbias, actually I thought he was boring and watched more NBC with Russert/Brokaw than him, ofcourse I'd check into Fox News as it looked like a funeral service

JaJae · 07-18-2007, 02:46 PM

Take out the union thing...since it's a union debate and I think union members would be insulted if they lost their seat and voice to people who aren't even sponsoring the debate

It's a major presidential debate. I don't remember the Republicans having an NRA debate or a religious debate where you had to be Christian to gain access. They're essentially closing the door to counter-opinion. Something Bush and the conservatives have been accused of repeatedly. They refuse to go on Fox based on journalistic integrity reasons, yet have no qualms with allowing MSNBC to host a debate with Keith Olbermann. I don't care who's idea it was to have Keith Olbermann do the debate, whether it was MSNBC, the Dems, or some third party. The Democrats have shown they have the power and will to say No to any debate format they choose. And don't get me wrong I don't blame the Democrats for doing this debate. They're trying to win the presidency and they should do what it takes to get elected. No political party would turn down such a generous BS debate scenario if it meant helping them win an election.

Well, we had a big thread (on here not DIAC I believe) on the #984759874 reasons why Fox would be a horrible idea for democrats, AND you shouldn't legitimize an organization for its one-sided errors and intentional remarks against Democrats while they claim to be fair and balanced

And there's a million reasons why the Republicans shouldn't have done the debate on MSNBC, but they did. We can list reasons all day long as to what the best format for a softball presidential debate would be. Having Keith Olbermann and a fully unionized audience seems to right up there on my best ideas for an overly biased debate.

On the KO part, its just one debate and he's been asked by the union...with no real progressive in the race, I fail to see how he is going to "give them softballs" if he is as liberal as you say he is...

I have no idea what he's going to do, but based on his previous 2007 presidential debate performances it seems he'll likely give softballs and show a clear favoritism. The same would be assumed if the debate was on Fox with Rush Limbaugh hosting it and an audience full of NRA card carriers. He may not give softballs and host a good debate, we'll have to wait and see.

While KO's views he's expressed, almost all of them from what I've seen would have popular support in the polls, but someone like Rush or Coulter would be in the 5-10% range...totally different

This is pure speculation. If you look at Fox/O'Rielly/Hannity/Limbaugh, etc ratings you'll see they're extremely popular. Clearly a large percentage of America wants to hear what they have to see. And quite often moreso than Olbermann. If this is the argument, then clearly Fox should have allowed O'Rielly to host the Fox debate because people's desire to hear his views is more popular than Olbermann.

I remember watching him cover the 2006 election night and I thought he was very unbias,

I remember watching him cover the 2007 presidential debates and he clearly was overly biased.

Thorgrim · 07-18-2007, 04:55 PM

There have been, what, 4 debates already, and here are several other big debates:
July 23, 2007 - Charleston, South Carolina
August 19, 2007 - Des Moines, Iowa
September 26, 2007 - Hanover, New Hampshire
October 30, 2007 - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
November 15, 2007 - Las Vegas, Nevada
December 10, 2007 - Los Angeles, California
January 6, 2008 - Johnson County, Iowa
January 15, 2008 - Las Vegas, Nevada
January 31, 2008 - California

I mean cmon, that's a lot to cover even BY JANUARY...and I think they left a few out (fox debate is not included)

I think the union said "how about an EXTRA debate? we'll sponsor" and they signed on...again EVERYONE had to go on CNN and MSNBC...and not ONE republican said "oh, they really screwed us on MSNBC...we looked like morons but the democrats came out looking like gods" or anything close to that

There is NOT a million reasons why the GOP should not have gone (yeah double negative) on MSNBC for the debate...the moderators asked lousy questions to BOTH PARTIES...its a simple fact that it was REALLY EARLY and there like what 19 candidates from 2 parties? could you imagine how difficult it was to plan that out "ok almost 2 years before the election we're going to fit 9 people on stage one day, and then a few days later 10, and we're supposed to inform the american people on who they should vote for 2 years later and give a solid picture of all 19 people, of which none may be president, but one may"

it's mess, and MSNBC didn't do a great job but they certainly didn't do a liberal job