Obama and His Family Created Excellent History on Access Hollywood

I'm really surprised about the flack Obama has been catching about the recent interview of him and his family - Michelle, and daughters Malia (age 10) and Sasha (age 7) - by Maria Menounos on Access Hollywood.

I found the interview heartwarming and delightful. It was a pleasure to see a family joking, quipping, even complaining about Obama leaving his suitcase on the floor. Maybe I'm not objective, but this reminded me of my wife and our kids, when they were younger, and seemed refreshingly normal in a candidate for President.

So why the uproar?

Anderson Cooper, on CNN, was the first I saw expressing some displeasure, griping the night before last that the questions Ms. Menounos asked were softballs. Cooper expected, what, hard-hitting questions of children? Menounos conducted an excellent interview. As Dan Abrams (still my favorite on MSNBC) observed last night, Cooper was just jealous.

And what's vexing Andrew Sullivan? In his Daily Dish today, Sullivan says he was "was gob-smacked by the Obamas' decision to include their children in a soft-focus TV interview," and ties this to concerns about Obama's positions on FISA, the Second Amendment, Iraq, and deciding to give his acceptance speech in a huge outdoor stadium!

Talk about a laundry list. Much as I like seeing the word "gob-smacked," what on Earth is Sullivan talking about? Obama didn't change his position on Iraq or the Second Amendment, he did on FISA - I don't see that as such a problem, but even if I did - what does that have to do with having your family interviewed and wanting to accept your nomination in an outdoor stadium? Sullivan says it's all "hubris" for Obama - but, frankly, the hubris here looks more like Sullivan's.

Obama himself has said he regretted the family interview - but, I've got to say, that's one thing that I do disagree with Obama about. I predict Maria Menounos' interview of the Obama family will go down as an illuminating piece of history of a Presidential family to be.

Because, the fact is, we really don't have any others. Wouldn't you love to see one of JFK and his family right before he was elected? Of course, the timing wasn't quite right, Caroline was not even three, but you know what I mean.

But good for the Obamas and Access Hollywood and Maria Menounos for making this happen.

The Decline and Fall of Keith Olbermann (At Least, in my Estimation)

I first realized there was something off with Keith Olbermann when he attacked 24 and Jack Bauer as agents of the Bush administration last year.

I know, that's a minor thing, but that's the point. Why go after a television show when there is so much else you can lambaste when it comes to Bush administration policy?

I admit to having mostly enjoyed a lot of Olbermann's other ticks and gimmicks, including his relentless attacks on Bill O'Reilly. They may not have been completely fair, but media personality wars are irresistible to students of the genre.

In the past few months, though, Olbermann has branched out to the other targets. He histrionically announced his support of Barack Obama and disappointment in Hillary Clinton. Now, I support Barack Obama, too, and have found fault in Hillary Clinton's campaign (such as its "logic" that votes for Hillary in Michigan, where hers was the only name on the ballot, should count), but to hold up Hillary Clinton and her campaign as some kind of devil in democratic politics is just ridiculous.

And Olbermann's gotten worse. Bill O'Reilly's two-part interview with Hillary Clinton, as I mentioned here the other day, was a fine job on both Hillary and O'Reilly's parts. O'Reilly asked tough questions, but was courteous and engaging throughout. Clinton responded with substance and style. All and all, one of the best political interviews I've seen this season.

But Olbermann, almost taking it as a personal insult that Hillary Clinton allowed herself to be interviewed by O'Reilly (after a much weaker interview - because of Olbermann's questions - on Countdown several weeks ago), has been doing nothing but denouncing Hillary Clinton and Bill O'Reilly the past two nights.

Enough is a enough. Intolerance in the media is just as bad if it comes from the left as from the right. I think I'll stay on my computer and skip Olbermann from now on, and wait until Abrams comes on 9pm.

MSNBC Unfurls Excellent New Lineup - But Why are They Keeping Their Lame "Doc-Block"?

MSNBC announced the following changes in its schedule, to take effect this coming Monday, March 17 -

.David Gregory, NBC News' Chief White House Correspondent, will anchor Race for the White House, a new daily show airing from 6-7pm
.NBC News' Andrea Mitchell will anchor MSNBC each weekday afternoon from 1-2pm
.Countdown with Keith Olbermann, on at 8pm, will now re-air a second time at 10pm, in addition to a third time at 2am.
.MSNBC's "doc block" will now air weeknights from 11pm-2am.
.Live with Dan Abrams will re-launch as Verdict with Dan Abrams, from 9-10pm.
.Tucker Carlson's show is out, but he will continue on MSNBC as Senior Campaign Correspondent.

These all look like excellent moves. With the strength of NBC regulars Brian Williams and Tim Russert, along with Tom Brokaw on election nights, MSNBC has the best election coverage in the business. David Gregory joining the weeknight lineup of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Dan Abrams makes a lot of sense. And when you add to that the stature and savvy of political commentators like Patrick Buchanan and Joe Scarborough, MSNBC is unbeatable.

But there's one thing I've never understood about MSNBC, and still don't get in the new lineup: why is MSNBC alienating the audience for its political coverage with its "doc block"? I know that I have dialed away from MSNBC many times when I wanted to see politics, and MSNBC had yet another show about life behind some prison bars....

Moving the doc-block to 11pm is a step in the right direction. My suggestion: move it to three o'clock in the morning, or off the network altogether.

Especially in an election year, the "Doc Block" is not the way to go...

MSNBC Needs to Stop Sniping at Hillary Clinton

I'm a devoted Obama supporter. I voted for him in the super-primary in New York last Tuesday, and am convinced he would make the best next President. But I am also a student - and a professor - of the media, as well as someone who wants to see the Democratic party strong, and it is for those reasons that I think it's time to say enough is enough already about the shoddy way MSNBC is treating Hillary Clinton's campaign for the Presidency.

It's not just David Shuster's astonishingly tasteless and unacceptable remark about the Clinton campaign "pimping out" Cheslea to campaign for her mother. MSNBC has apologized for that remark and suspended Shuster. Cheslea's campaigning for her mother has been nothing but laudable and classy. One wonders if Shuster or anyone would have used that term had a son been campaigning for his mother or father.

But any news operation could be subject to the loose tongue of a reporter or commentator, and the problem at MSNBC regarding Hillary Clinton goes much deeper.

You can hear and see it just about every night on Chris Matthews' Hardball. For some reason, he refers to a lot of things that Hillary Clinton has been doing in this campaign as being done not by Hillary Clinton but by "the Clintons".

What's that? If Matthews wants to claim that Bill Clinton as well as Hillary had something to do with a specific action or strategy of Hillary's, let him say so. But the constant reference to Hillary Clinton as "the Clintons" undermines Hillary Clinton as an individual and is demeaning.

Keith Olbermann is no angel in his attitude towards Hillary Clinton, either. When Olbermann attacks Rush Limbaugh by constantly calling him a "comedian," we all laugh. Olbermann's tick-like verbal attacks and facial expressions are usually welcome when they are directed at Fox News. But they have no place in supposedly even-handed coverage of a Presidential campaign. And although Olbermann is not as out there against Hillary Clinton as is Matthews, his comments about her are all too often studded with sarcasm and derision.

Indeed, of the MSNBC nighttime regulars, only Dan Abrams has been consistently even-handed and non-ad-hominem.

It may well be that, by the time this election is over, MSNBC will have become the liberal equivalent of what Fox News has been for conservatives. That would be good news for CNN, but bad news for the American people, who could certainly benefit from three unbiased cable news networks - or, at least two.


15-minute podcast of this commentary

subscribe to this podcast on your cell phone: 415-223-4122

Kudos to Dan Abrams on MSNBC

In the midst of this heat-up of the Democratic primaries, and the extraordinary - and justified - attention it's getting in the media, I want to take a minute to compliment Dan Abrams for the fine coverage he just gave these developments in his 9pm in his "Live With Dan Abrams" show on MSNBC.

I've been enjoying this latest incarnation of Abrams' show for a while (my wife has been a real fan since even some of his earlier shows). I like mixture of facts, humor, sarcasm - not overweening, just right - that Abrams gives to the news and the media.

Tonight he outdid himself, with a three person panel (Lawrence O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow, Patrick Buchanan) joining Abrams like ringside judges in deciding five rounds of Hillary v. Obama in last night's debate.

It didn't hurt that I agreed with most of Abrams' calls (in particular, awarding the "good" Republican and "present at vote" rounds to Obama). I just found the whole set-up just right - funny and informative and even passionate where it needed to be.

I predict that if Abrams is able to keep this show going, it will someday make it to the top.

Or, maybe not - but, hey, that hasn't stopped me from being a devoted Journeyman fan.