James Carville, Paul Begala, and Robert Zimmerman have lost their "analyst" spots on CNN, perhaps as a result of persistent complaints from the Obama campaign. Greg Sargent reports at The Horse's Mouth, a TPM blog:
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.* * * * *
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."
Read the whole post at the link provided. They will be allowed to appear on CNN in the meantime, but only in the role of surrogates or spokesmen for the Clinton campaign.
What is most interesting is that they will be returned to their roles as "analysts" once the nomination is settled - meaning they will be presented as objective observers of the general election campaign. It's apparently okay to have "analysts" who are in the bag for Democrats, just not those in the bag for particular Democrats in the Democratic primaries.
CNN seems to have picked their candidate, given the recent sharper coverage of the Clintons along with the departure of these long-time Clinton allies (who have been presented to the public as "analysts" by CNN for years).
Permalink | E-mail This | Technorati Links | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race, Democrats, Media, Politics
Tags: Democrats, Hillary Clinton, media, Obama, Presidential campaign
Comments (5)
"It's apparently okay to ha... (Below threshold)1. Posted by mikem![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| January 26, 2008 2:28 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
"It's apparently okay to have "analysts" who are in the bag for Democrats, just not those in the bag for particular Democrats in the Democratic primaries."
Jeeze Loweeze. Sometimes you just have to laugh at the outrageousness of MSM hypocrisy. And I bet if you asked at the Columbia Journalism website or some public editor source they would find your sensible, even unavoidable, take on the events as just a babbling voice from rightwing nut land.
After all, they are professionals and can set aside their political bias. (LMAO)
1. Posted by mikem![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| January 26, 2008 2:28 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2008 02:28
2. Posted by 914 | January 26, 2008 10:46 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Carville (cue-ball) and Begala are analcysts alright. these are 2 of the biggest plantation bigots around.
2. Posted by 914 | January 26, 2008 10:46 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2008 10:46
3. Posted by Proof | January 26, 2008 12:52 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Newsflash: James Carville is biased! (film at eleven!)
Man, that CNN stays on top of the news!
3. Posted by Proof | January 26, 2008 12:52 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2008 12:52
4. Posted by marc | January 26, 2008 3:19 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Gee, where are all those defenders of the MSM, the haters of "faux News" because it it's alleged "bias?
They musta "moved along" because there's "nothing to see here."
At least nothing they'd admit to.
4. Posted by marc | January 26, 2008 3:19 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2008 15:19
5. Posted by yo | January 26, 2008 5:56 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
S'bout friggin' time those two barnyard freaks were shown the door.
Carville is, well .. he's Carville. He may be better at hiding his bias, but he's still Carville.
Now, that barking monkey Begala is just downright antagonistically, obnoxiously and overtly in the can for anything Clinton (and Kerry in '04). Always has been, always will be.
So, those two are gone, temporarily; but what about the rest of the ass-clowns?
Does Donna Brazil (oh, she of no campaign victories and pseduo-Cardinal in the church of Gore) stick around, too?
5. Posted by yo | January 26, 2008 5:56 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 26, 2008 17:56