Bob, the media navel-gazing is out of control. To hear them talk about the terror trials in NY, you'd think the press had no control over its own coverage.

The media (it's hard to call them "The Press" anymore) collectively suffers from some strange form of OCD.

I saw that and finally deceided to go back to watching Around The Horn and PTI. I can't stand listening to him rant on, in his cross examining style. He's really an idiot and rarely knows what the hell he's talking about. His guest can barely get a word in. A few weeks ago he claimed that Obama never campaigned on a public option. He then said he was sure but, would have his staff check it out. I'm still waiting. And what's with all that spit? It's disgusting!

Most of these media pundits/anchors need to hand over the gig to more forward thinking individuals. A lot of these guys are stuck, stuck in their modus of delivery, stuck in old school thinking, and just.. stuck generally!!Tell me, what does Chris Matthews really contribute to your consciousness.
Some-one please respond!

I have to agree with the "stuck" line of thinking. I think the country has moved beyond horse-racing politics, but the media is still stuck in it.

This will only lead to shrinking ad revenue from reduced viewer numbers. The same thing that has happened to newspapers will happen to corporate news media.

It will only get worse before they just dissapear.

I have put up with CM's well-know annoyances for a while. But when he had Plouffe on last week, that was my last viewing. Now I listen to Air America or watch BBC America during his two hours and usually Ed's hour.

I am tired of being yelled at by members of my own party. And I am tired of facts falling through the cracks all over the place. I get stressed enough listening to the right, I sure as hell don't need it from the left, also, too.

Jennifer

@jhw22: What happened with CM and Plouffe?

I gave up on Matthews a long time ago. I could forgive all of his tics, and spittle, and "ask-a-question-then-step-on-the-response-to-ask-the-damn-question-again" nonsense, but his uneven political commentary and 'analysis' just got to be too much.

For a while I wondered if he was a tad bi-polar, but my current theory is that he's on some kind of medication and there's an intern fucking with him, swapping in placebos every now and then.

Eric, I just giggled at the 'swapping in placebos' bit. Cute! He,like most of them, are just hacks, having been given celebrity type status by being around so long, they are just there doing/saying what they know best.....BUT THE AUDIENCE HAS CHANGED, fellahs, the audience has changed!!What worked then, does not apply or work now. It is called growth and it applies to the MSM, anchors/pundits/journalists, and the general public at large.

@Allonfla, CM tried to get Plouffe to say that Clinton was chosen as Sec State purely to appease the base and accused Plouffe of secrecy when Plouffe said that Clinton was chosen because of her obvious strengths. He also sniped at Plouffe for something Plouffe said was about trees through the woods which made CM sound like he was lecturing Plouffe on integrity against something that Plouffe didn't even say. He basically created an argument in his head (which he often does) that had no basis in reality. And then at the end of the interview whined about "Plouffe is mad at me". It was bizarre, immature and extremely sloppy.

There was a great moment when the very "liberal" Chuck Tool was on Bill Maher--Jeremy Scahill called him out and in defending himself, Tool was caught saying, "but the story WILL be...blah blah blah."

--The media control the narrative--simultaneously confessing to it and pretending not to--

Try reading what Fallows 'Manufactured Failure' says about what the great?(!!) MSM reported or rather didn't report on President Obama and his China/Asian visit.
Sad really, because they are not even subtle about their efforts to sabotage this president.To be honest with you I have given up on the headlines/reportings generally. Too negative for my psyche. I am simply tired of wanting to smash the tv and whoever is giving lip service.

Carribeanobserver said:

Most of these media pundits/anchors need to hand over the gig to more forward thinking individuals.

Carib, I'd be happy if they were simply thinking individuals, nevermind forward thinking!

At this risk of making everyone's heads explode - I think 'dithering' is a pretty apt description of President Obama's leadership style at this point.

@Stranahan, he would have to be agitated or nervous to be dithering. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps he is agitated by the push back he gets when trying to move forward. Perhaps he is nervous about knowing that if he increases troop levels he will be writing more letters to families of the fallen. Perhaps he is anxious about keeping the country from losing more and more jobs. I am pretty sure he does care enough to have all of those concerns.

The issue is that he is taking time to make decisions. If dithering means he is trying to take reality into account, then fine, he's dithering. But if you mean he's dithering the way Cheney means he is dithering, then thank God you aren't the President because we just had 8 years of jump without any thought whatsoever.

Stranahan: I think 'dithering' is a pretty apt description of President Obama's leadership style at this point.

And thus Lee Stranahan completes the swan dive into the Cheney abyss. And by "abyss," I mean Cheney's ass crack.

President Obama hasn't created a perfect utopia in the 10 months he's been in office. We're doomed, I tell you! DOOOOOOOOOOMED!

Hey, Lee: What have you ever been in charge of? What's your leadership style?

Keep floggin' that straw man, Carl...

You're saying that Obama has shown bold and decisive leadership in the last six months or so? Who do I believe - you or my lying eyes?

I thought your eyes were bad, Lee. I wouldn't say he's been the "Ram the legislation down your throat whether you like it or not" style that the previous "leader" showed, but I wouldn't call it "dithering" either.

"Dithering" wouldn't have gotten us to the point of debating health care legislation in the first place.

"Dithering" wouldn't have gotten us a first step towards immigration reform.

"Dithering" wouldn't have gotten us 10.2% unemployment. It would have gotten us closer to 15-17%.

"Dithering" wouldn't have gotten us the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

"Ditherng" wouldn't have gotten us a pledge to close Gitmo, delayed by Congress.

"Dithering" wouldn't have gotten us a pledge to pull troops out of Iraq by 2011.

"Dithering" is not a word I would use for President Obama. Do I wish he were harsher on Wall Street or more assertive on health care? Absolutely. But if I remember correctly, the President of the United States in not a unilateral dictator. Maybe the last eight years of Bush/Cheney rule made you forget that.

So don't put words in my mouth. "Bold" and "decisive"? Not in some cases. But "dithering"? Absolutely not.

Maybe he's a little ditherish, but that's a good thing when it comes to what to do in the 'Stans. I think we could have seen some bolder stuff coming from the White House during the health care sausage making fest. I think that the bully pulpit was sorely neglected during that process. If we had had a clear, strong voice for a great public option, cost controls, and reining in all the abuses heaped upon us by the insurance goons we might have gotten through this quicker and with a much less watered down plan.
However, here we are, we are moving forward with debate, and I'm glad he's president. Now for some job creation.
Matthews is so all over the board. I don't think the interns are giving him placebos. It's more like Prozac one day, ecstasy the next, mescaline, everclear in the coffee. He's tri polar.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, I have to agree with Lee. Obama is the Commander-in-Chief, so he can't blame the GOP for any delays with respect to Afghanistan. He has been in office 10 months, and quite frankly given how he campaigned on a plan of escalation in that country I would have expected that he didn't need several months to make a decision. He's had plenty of sit-downs with the top brass, and has had plenty of time to chart a course in that theatre of operations.

That said, I've wondered about the broader anti-Afghanistan stance that to me seems like it only popped up in the past 2-3 months. Millions voted for him knowing that he planned on getting out of Iraq in order to escalate in Afghanistan. Why the sudden change on the Left? Of course the GOP is questioning Afghanistan simply because Obama is a Democrat, but I don't get it and haven't seen anything to explain this shift.

Klaus,

Perhaps the situation on the ground is different from what it was a year ago? Perhaps the intel reports he's gotten show a different Afghanistan than we're all led to believe? Maybe the elections we a tipping point?

Obviously we all realize (and by "all" I mean the rational "all") that nothing is static, but I think it takes a lot more balls to push away the Joint Chiefs and tell them to come back with an exit strategy than just pick one of the plans that perpetuates the mess in Afghanistan and continue something that's been clearly fucked for years.

That should be, "Maybe the elections were a tipping point?"

Carl,

I broadly agree with you - I'm not suggesting that Obama ignore facts on the ground, and I know that within his Administration there is disagreement (ie, McChrystal v. Biden).

As far as I can tell, nothing significant has changed in the past year. The Taliban held half the country a year ago and the same is true now. Pakistan is problematic, the warlords are corrupt, Karzai is useless and controls little beyond Kabul. All these problems have remained.

My point is that the time to chart the course for Afghanistan was during and right after the transition phase.

While I have every confidence Obama will make a good decision on Afghanistan, I can't think of any reason that it should take this long. Escalate, or withdraw - these are the options. There are details under those headings to be sure, but it's a rather binary choice.

My own opinion is in line with what I perceive Biden's to be - the "real" fight is in Pakistan, so it behooves us to shore up the idiot Karzai in order to focus efforts on the actual problem - Pakistan's ISI.

Klaus summed it very well - he's had plenty of time. Plenty.

And on health care - he's shown no leadership whatsoever. He doesn't stand for anything except passing a bill.

And 10% unemployment is nothing to be proud of - I know you're comparing it to an imaginary number which can't be proven or disproven, but I'm comparing it what it's been for the past 20 years or so.

Like (I think) Bill Maher said - Obama is a guy who spent three months picking out the family dog.

My TV was on MSNBC when Matthews said all of that garbage at the start of his program. I quickly changed to a local news station. I really believe he has some cognitive issues. I agree with what has been said about him here completely.
I also agree completely with all Carl has written in these comments. I appreciate his grasp of the facts and his logic. Like Bob,he makes very cogent points.