I did not pay attention to Jon Stewart's rally for sanity or something because it was an example of the typical nothingness that passes for deep thought these days. Apparently, Stewart doesn't like all the anger out there. Whatever. But almost worse than the rally was Stewart's response to criticisms that his rally was about nothing:

Contrary to what people may believe, I do think the rally was about something - just not necessarily what they wanted it to be about or what they think it was about. If we were unartful in that message, we were unartful. I disagree with their classification of it. But I'm sure we'll all have a chance to clarify it on each other's programs for the next 10 years."

David Broder also insists his columns are about something meaningful. Saying it is does not make it so. So what exactly was Stewart's rally about? Apparently he'll need another 10 years to explain it. I suppose that's an improvement on Broder, who has had 50 years and still can't explain it.

Speaking for me only

Michael Kinsley beats Rachel Maddow in a 1 round KO (pun intended). Here's Kinsley:

MSNBC’s suspension of Keith Olbermann, which started out as “indefinite” and ended as two days, for making a few political campaign contributions is absurd in so many ways that it’s hard to keep track. If Olbermann had merely put these politicians on his show, representing a viewpoint he obviously shares, that would have been worth more than a campaign contribution of a few thousand dollars, but Olbermann would be considered blameless. Does anyone think that by suppressing the expression of his views (via these donations), Olbermann would have stopped having them? Does anyone doubt what Olbermann’s views are on politics in general and these races in particular? Most journalists try to suppress their biases — Olbermann gets paid to flaunt his biases. On a crude political scale, Olbermann is a left-wing liberal. MSNBC hired him to be a liberal and last week suspended him for the same thing. Or rather, not for being a liberal but for revealing it.

Maddow's position was that what makes MSNBC different than Fox is these absurd rules:

The New York Times reports liberal magazines like the Nation could see an increase in readers as a result of the recent elections.

Liberal magazines do well when the other side is in power:

The Bush years were good — very good — to The Nation. After operating in the red almost every year since it was founded by abolitionists in 1865, the magazine turned a profit in 2003. From 2001 to 2003, the magazine’s circulation leapt from 107,000 to 149,000 and kept growing. By 2006, it had reached its peak at 187,000.

I suspect (and hope) the same is true for blogs. [More...]

MSNBC has ended Keith Olbermann's suspension. From their announcement (received by e-mail, no link yet.)

STATEMENT REGARDING KEITH OLBERMANN - SUNDAY, NOV. 7

From Phil Griffin, President of MSNBC:

After several days of deliberation and discussion, I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night's program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy. We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night.

Here's Keith six hours ago on Twitter: [More...]

My favorite movie of Jill Clayburgh's from the 70's. She has passed away of leukemia at age 66. Way too young.

And he actually makes sense:

MSNBC’s suspension of Keith Olbermann is ludicrous. First, he donated money to candidates he liked. He didn’t take money, or favors, in a way that influenced his reporting. Second, he’s not a reporter. It’s an opinion show. If Olbermann wants to put his money where his mouth is, more power to him. Third, GE, the corporate parent of MSNBC, gives money to political organizations. GE executives and, I’m sure, NBC executives give money. Why can’t Olbermann?

Perhaps Olbermann violated NBC News “policy and standards.” But NBC doesn’t have real news standards for MSNBC—otherwise the channel wouldn’t exist. It’s a little strange to get all high and mighty now.

He's right.

So many questions:

So Many Questions

TPM Reader EA:

I don't get why Democrats would want to maintain the same leadership personalities in the House. Don't people all around the country really really hate Nancy Pelosi and probably James Clyburn too? Don't we have any 'young guns' to showcase over the next couple of years? Doesn't an even more 'liberal' minority leadership structure only increase the likelihood we'll see the dreaded triangulation from the President? [. . .] What's the strategy here? Is it more about convention and entitlement than strategy?

(Emphasis supplied.) Interesting. Though there clearly is one easy answer on the "triangulation" question - if the President is going to triangulate, better that he triangulate against a more progressive position in the House Dem caucus, than against a "moderate" position in the House Dem caucus. But I do find the anti-Pelosi TPM position quite fascinating. I wonder what that's about.

Update: TPM posts a counterpoint. Maybe they don't oppose Pelosi after all. Or maybe they don't want to appear to be opposing her. In any event, strange stuff.

Speaking for me only

Daily Kos has a lot on this.

I'm not an MSNBC or Olbermann viewer or fan so the part that interests me is why Olbermann did it? He must have known it violated his contract. Is he trying to get out? Is he at war with Phil Griffin, the MSNBC President? And what is MSNBC's thinking on this? Obviously this is not going to help their ratings.

And of course MSNBC has double standards as it has allowed Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan to give to candidates. The whole opinion vs. reporters line is pretty weak, given that Olbermann has not been a reporter for a pretty long time now.

No, this is an office politics dispute for sure. Maybe MSNBC wants to go back to being the Beltway network they were before Olbermann lifted them out from irrelevancy. As I said, I'm no Olbermann fan, but he clearly had the better business strategy for MSNBC than Griffin. Will Griffin go after Maddow next? Will it be a network of Tweetys and Lawrence O'Donnells? That would certainly be a business mistake. Maybe Griffin wants to be the new Jeff Zucker (the guy who destroyed NBC the broadcast network.) Clearly there is more here going on than meets the eye.

Speaking for me only

On Tuesday, Marco Rubio won a smashing victory in the Florida Senate race. He won 49% of the vote. A mandate! But 49% means something different when Dems garner it:

Clinton caught a series of lucky breaks from events and from his own enemies. And the comeback only won him 49 percent of the vote: The man widely regarded as one of the most talented Democratic politicians of modern history never commanded a majority in a national election.

The man in Florida who won a smashing victory never commanded a majority in a statewide election. Somehow I don't expect that line to be written. The Beltway is soooo predictable.

Speaking for me only

It happens every election night. You're watching one channel, and a particular host or pundit is so obnoxious or out to lunch in his/her commentary, you change the channel. Only to have it happen at the next station. And again. Until you turn back to the first one and repeat the whole process. Then you try hitting the mute button so you can listen to the ones you like.

I'm watching Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw and David Gregory on NBC and the local news. Sane coverage. On MSNBC, Olbermann, Rachel and Chuck Todd were okay, but Chris Matthews had a typical screaming fit, arguing with a female politician about the health care bill (on election night? Who cares?) and that was it for MSNBC.

So, who's really gotten your goat tonight? And where did you go to escape them?

Via Balloon Juice, a Jonah Goldberg Op-Ed published in the Chicago Tribune:

I'd like to ask a simple question: Why isn't Julian Assange dead? [. . .] Why wasn't Assange garroted in his hotel room years ago?

It's a serious question.

It's not a serious question of course. And Goldberg is not a serious person. But for all the fainting couches the "progressive elite" pundits fell on regarding Markos' book American Taliban, it is remarkable that this column was published by a major newspaper in the United States.

Speaking for me only

Steve Benen and Jed Lewison highlight this comment from John Boehner:

"This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles," Boehner said during an appearance on conservative Sean Hannity's radio show.

Their Broderesque reaction: Benen - "I know I keep harping on this, but I think it matters. One of the angles I emphasized yesterday related to the perception that the American mainstream has a visceral dislike for this kind GOP rhetoric. [. . .] We'll see how that turns out for them." Lewison - "For the next two years, the only thing these guys want is paralysis. And that's exactly what they are promising to deliver."

Like David Broder, they seem to believe that "compromise" is what the electorate demands. If that were so, then Republicans would get wiped out in November. Instead they are headed to a historic victory. Like Broder, Benen and Lewison are seemingly unaware of reality regarding the public's attitude regarding "compromise" and getting along. The public does not care about that. They want a better economy and better policies. They do not care how it gets done. Indeed, they do not care if legislation gets passed. To the public, legislation is not "accomplishments." They just want things to get better.

Speaking for me only