Carville and Begala banned from CNN due to Obama campaign complaints
TPM has an interesting piece here:
Okay, this is interesting. I’ve just learned that CNN has told top Dem strategists James Carville, Paul Begala, and Robert Zimmerman — who are CNN mainstays but are all Hillary supporters — that they will not be doing any more political analysis on the network until the Democratic primary has reached a conclusion.
I’m also told that this move came after the Obama campaign repeatedly complained to high level officials at CNN about the presence of Carville and Begala on the network.
After I reached him today and pointed out that he hadn’t been on CNN in some time, Carville confirmed to me that the network had told him that he wouldn’t appear until the Dem primary is resolved.
Sam Feist, CNN’s political director, also confirmed the decision to me. “As we got closer to the voting, we made a decision to make sure that all the analysts that are on are non-aligned,” Feist said, adding that the decision had been made around the start of December. “Carville and Begala are two of the best analysts around and we look forward to seeing them on CNN plenty of times in the future, once the nominating process has ended.”
If this bubbles up to the MSM, I doubt it helps Obama much. “Repeatedly complaining” sounds like “whinging” to a lot of folks, after all. Obama has received an unprecedentedly easy ride from the media already during this primary, and if the perception is that he can simply contact a network and have removed pundits he can’t effectively argue against, well, that says more about Obama than it does the pundits.
One wonders as well what’s going to happen in the general election if Hillary Clinton is the nominee…will CNN continue to ban Carville, Begala, and Zimmerman so that they can’t play shenanigans against the Republican candidate? Doubtful, eh?
Update: Welcome, Instapundit readers, and thanks, Glenn, for linking!
Linked by John Locke Foundation’s Triangle Blog, Thanks!
Farked, Thanks!
Linked by Geraghty the Indispensible at National Review Online, thanks, Jim!
Linked by Swerdloff Blog, Thanks!
Filed under: Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2008, News, Politics
This reminds me of what another blogger, as well as a friend of mine, said to me (this is the essence of their messages, not direct quotes):
“When you actually do research, Obama has almost exactly the same platform as hillary: Government must conquer the capitalist market, we must universalize healthcare, etc. However, he obscures this behind his boyish face & enthusiasm, & many more of us are swayed by the novelty of a black president.”
I have nothing against any president of any race or sex: heck, you could bring in the Alien Queen from A. Vs. P. if she would govern this country effectively, for all I care. But if the president’s main foreign policy experience is a 2-day pleasure visit to an Indian prince’s palace, where the most earth-shaking thing they talk about is the weather…
[...] this report is accurate, the Obama campaign has gotten James Carville, Paul Begala and Robert Zimmerman, all [...]
“One wonders as well what’s going to happen in the general election if Hillary Clinton is the nominee…will CNN continue to ban Carville, Begala, and Zimmerman so that they can’t play shenanigans against the Republican candidate?”
This quote from your post should be pushed all over the blogosphere, in the hope that, with enough exposure, it will percolate into the consciousness of the MSM, because I believe that most of them will NEVER think of that themselves.
Most of them truely, honestly believe that they are “objective”, and I think that it takes pretty much continuous “nudges” like this quote to remind them of their own prejudice. Hopefully, this may help them to really become more “objective”.
Regardless of who requested they be removed from on-air analysis, it only makes sense to do so. How can they be “objectively” reporting on any campaign when they are also advising to and rooting for one? It’s a pity, and enlightening, that CNN didn’t recognize this and had to have someone else point out the contradiction.
Really? Now all CNN has to do is let go of their ENTIRE on/off air staff to do the thing correctly. Pleaze….
What Sue said!
Regarding the general election, only Democrats watch CNN so does it really matter? Perhaps they might ban them so they can get the word out on a station people watch.
Of course they will be back for the general.
And if there is any approbation from the GOP side, CNN will make a righteously indignant stink about it, and point out that Carville and Begala will be “balanced” by David Gergen, Al Hunt and Ron Paul.
Plus ca change….
Think that’s bad? Wait until Obama is the nominee, or worse yet, the President. Who do you think will be able to criticise anything he says or does with out being labeled a racist bigot pig?. Hmmmm? Does anyone believe the media will ever say anything negative about a black nominee or president? Maybe Al Sharpton would get away with it. No one else.
What would happen if Tim Russert, Andrea, Wolf
were taken off CNN? They are pretty obvious about
their Clinton dislike.
Since Obama has now forced the CLinton News Network into admission of lopsided balance in favor of Hillary. Removing Begala and Carville show CNN agrees. When the general election begins the GOP candidate should immediatly file suit and begin a demand for equal time for the non-Hillary side. I would think whoever is the standard bearer for the GOP - this is a good chance to bury the fairness doctrine in the minds of the masses once and for all. It requires aggressive fighting however.
Obama has received an unprecedentedly easy ride from the media already during this primary, and if the perception is that he can simply contact a network and have removed pundits he can’t effectively argue against, well, that says more about Obama than it does the pundits.
How was he supposed to effectively argue against them, short of having his own on-air boosters sitting in adjacent chairs? He was only asking for fair representation, nothing wrong with that.
“Regarding the general election, only Democrats watch CNN so does it really matter? Perhaps they might ban them so they can get the word out on a station people watch.”
I’ve been a registered Republican for 22 years, and I watch CNN daily. It’s on my TV at this very moment, in fact.
It seems that anyone who speaks against Obama, or doesn’t speak out FOR him, is told to, or forced to keep quiet.
Are bloggers next? What if he wins the general election? Are we going to be allowed to speak out against the president, or are we going to be told to “chill?”
“Removing Begala and Carville show CNN agrees.”
All it shows is that CNN doesn’t want Al Sharpton at their doorsteps demanding someone be fired for “picking on a brother.”
Frankly, this babying of Obama is getting sickening. We’d just better hope he isn’t our next president, because the world won’t cater to his appearantly delicate ego.
Fair…representation…
You mean the networks aren’t supposed to be PR firms for the candidates they like? I feel faint…
[...] TPM found via Cadillac Light: Okay, this is interesting. I’ve just learned that CNN has told top Dem strategists James [...]
“As we got closer to the voting, we made a decision to make sure that all the analysts that are on are non-aligned,” Feist said.
Yeah, hey listen — lemme know how that works out for you.
Obama has not had a “free ride”… He preempted the attacks by laying it all out in his book. That makes all the smears against him “old news”… Much like the Whitewater, commodities, Rose Law firm billing records etc are “”old news”…
Obama planned it and played it well. Clinton & Co were the first of the Boomer Generation. Obama is the first of the end of the Boomers… The difference between Obama’s age and outlook as compared to the Clintonian view is truly a generation of separation.
The Clintons represent the past. They are artifacts of an old culture war. That battle lasted for 40 years. Everyone knows the words and is tired of hearing them. Hillary is “Yesterday’s Woman”… She is the past. She offers no new ideas, no new initiatives, no new energy, no new hopes, no new ideals…
“The Times They Are A-Changing” Bob Dylan wrote that 40+ years ago. The words are even more true today than they were in 1963… The majority of the population is under 25. The Boomers have had their wars. It’s time to move on.
Obama is closer in age to Sarkozy, Brown and Putin than Hillary ever will be, even if she were to stand on her own two feet… It is time to move on to the new world, new future, new dreams and new ideals… Pasting the old slogans on new technology is not enough.
[...] Carville and Begala banned from CNN due to Obama campaign complaints « Cadillac Tight: Okay, this is interesting. I’ve just learned that CNN has told top Dem strategists James Carville, Paul Begala, and Robert Zimmerman — who are CNN mainstays but are all Hillary supporters — that they will not be doing any more political analysis on the network until the Democratic primary has reached a conclusion. [...]
Kwo,
“Fair representation”, eh? So if President Bush had a people removed from their media positions because he “couldn’t effectively argue against them, short of having his own on-air boosters sitting in adjacent chairs?” you’d be OK with that? o_O
Kinda shows what Mr. Obama thinks of the First Amendment, doesn’t it?
AndyJ,
It’s nice of you to give us a praisesong on behalf of Mr. Obama but if all the “smears” against him were indeed “old news” do you really think that Mr. Obama and his toadies would be so reduced to repeatedly complaining to CNN in order to get James Carville, Paul Begala, and Robert Zimmerman sacked? The fact that Mr. Obama’s flunkies felt compelled to do this does tell us the sort of President he would be. :P
these two clinton buttboys should never have been on, they are mean, nasty, and very lucky they have never met me.
All political parties do this in a primary season - they want to be neutral. And since CNN has taken over as the communications arm of the DNC, it makes perfect sense.
Boy, it was sure Ok to have the freakin’ DNC backroom contigent doing analysis of a Republican debate though.
“I’ve been a registered Republican for 22 years…”
This seems to be a catch phrase going around, bestowing legitimacy. It reeks of a seminar forgery. (You could very well be a ‘registered republican, but the number of people selecting that phrasing is just too suspicious.)
Try-”I’ve been a ‘conservative’ since Reagan”. I know at least 30 people who vote diehard republican, but not a one say will say they are a ‘registered republican’.
You’d do well not to judge the rest of the world based on your acquaintances.
I am 40 years old and have been a registered Republican since I was 18. You do the math.
I originally registered as “Decline to state,” but I didn’t like missing out on the primary election so I reregistered Republican before the general election.
And I never said I was a conservative.
What Joan of Arghhh & Sue said…
“It is time to move on to the new world, new future, new dreams and new ideals… Pasting the old slogans on new technology is not enough.”
Sadly, Obama has nothing interesting to offer in that regard. What he wants to move on to was essentially tested in the labratory known as the Soviet Union and failed miserably. And by the way, I notice Obama has no complaint with FoxNews’s coverage. I guess they are more fair and balanced than Nancy and Harry would have us believe.
CNN makes peace with Obama
I’m disabled so I have a lot of time on my hands. I watch ALL the news station and I gotta tell you, I never see anyone put Obama to the fire, not even on Fox. Plenty of Clinton bashing and lots of wink and nudge about Edwards, but Obama has pretty much got a free ride. On the Republican side, Ron Paul’s numbers are better than Guiliani’s yet rudy gets all the coverage, go figure.
Nonaligned my petutey. They just can’t be aligned to Clinton or any conservative Republican. That means McCain and Huckabee people are welcome.
We will all miss Bush by the end of 2008– I mean just about EVERYone will. Who are we going to trust to be steadfast where it counts? These are the good old days.
As I read the article I was suddenly struck with a flash. If Obama gets the nomination CNN will do there best to get the Democrat elected but how will they bring Carvel and his buds back on the air when they were all Clinton cronies. They might not be really thrilled to promote Obama.
[...] Did you believe this statement, even after his campaign had been caught red-handed with a four page memo which purported to summarize research on Hillary’s race-baiting? A memo crucial to all the subsequent smears of race-baiting Obama’s camp made against Clinton. Yah, he fired a lot of people for this one. He fired Hillary’s supporters who dared point out his hypocrisy. [...]
I yearn for the day when people stop making unqualified and unsubstantiated statements about “the” media and it’s alleged biases. Ever since the Limbaugh wing of the Republican party started making headway with their unsupported accusations about “the” media being liberal, everyone and their mom has been accusing “the” media of bias whenever it suits their poltical agenda.
Do you have any actual evidence for the claim that Obama campaign has had an “unprecedentedly easy ride from the media”? Or is this just what everyone’s saying in the Clinton campaign? Or better yet in “the” media, which you accuse of having a prObama bias?
Also: Willis, are you saying that Obama’s plans resemble those of the former Soviet Union??? Good grief! I suggest you do a bit more research, and read your history a bit more carefully this time.
Brian: Until Saturday Night Live poked them, give me one example of the media looking closely at anything Obama has said or done during his career. Until Ohio, there was very thin Rezko reporting, virtually nonexistent Jeremiah Wright reporting, and none of the sort of investigative journalism that has produced little nuggets of falsehood like this one that have started to appear in the last couple of days.
That’s a pretty easy media ride for the lion’s share of the past fourteen months of campaigning by Obama, don’t you think? Especially given the number of contests that Obama was allowed to compete in without any of this being brought to light?
I see you’re allowing the “automatically generated comments”. We weighed the pros and cons and opted out, figuring its a sophisticated legal spam system in the end, but I’ll be watching your generated links with interest to see how well the system works, one way or another.
The problem, as I see it, is one of control. There is enough problems with people associating comments with the owner, now might a blogger get smeared by links over which he has no control? I dunno.