and creating drama?" which is related to the topic of this post:

Jan. 17 Media provoking controversy?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22719521#22719521 (05:31)

Here is the MSNBC Dan Abrams transcript of this interesting video:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22731248/

'Live with Dan Abrams' for Jan. 17
Read the transcript to the Thursday show

Guests Peter Beinart, Rachel Sklar, Lanny Davis

DAN ABRAMS, HOST: In this campaign, is the media inventing controversy and creating drama? The inside DC media were all over Bill Clinton‘s exchange with a local San Francisco reporter, FOX News of course asking: Is they‘re losing it? Well, the Associated Press headline read: Bill Clinton Berates Reporter.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, FMR U.S. PRESIDENT: ((INAUDIBLE)) but they‘ll find that out later.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABRAMS: But that is not the only example. Late today, Republican candidate, Mitt Romney and an AP reporter seemed to almost close to blows of whether Romney‘s campaign includes any lobbyists.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: I don‘t have lobbyists running my campaign. I don‘t have

lobbyists -

GLENN JOHNSON, AP REPORTER: That is not true. That is not true.

Ron Kaufman is a lobbyist.

ROMNEY: Did you hear what I said, Glen?

JOHNSON: You said you don‘t have lobbyists running your campaign.

ROMNEY: I said I don‘t have lobbyists running my campaign and he‘s not running my campaign.

JOHNSON: He is one of your senior advisors.

ROMNEY: He‘s an advisor and the person who runs my campaign is Beth Meyers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABRAMS: The question: Are some of the media are now trying to spice up the campaign with provocation or is this just what we were supposed to do? Here now is David Shuster in Columbia, South Carolina. He‘s been covering the campaign and with us still is Rachel Sklar from the “Huffington Post.” What do you think Rachel, did the Romney confrontation legit?

RACHEL SKLAR, HUFFINGTON POST: Not legit at all. I mean that reporter was almost itching for a fight there and if you saw the extended footage where Romney went up and approached him after they both heading to the (INAUDIBLE).

ABRAMS: David, what you make of it? Is this an ongoing issue?

DAVID SHUSTER, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: I think Rachel is totally wrong. I mean reporter there was not asking a silly question or showing he didn‘t know what he was talking about. He caught Mitt Romney misleading people. We‘re not supposed to be stenographers for Mitt Romney and he said, that can not be true. And eventually, Mitt Romney acknowledge, oh, yes, it‘s just the person running my campaign at the top. He was not a lobbyist. The fact is Ron Kaufman is a lobbyist. The reporter was right on the mark. Now, you can say, maybe the reporter should be a little nicer about it. (INAUDIBLE) see reporters air on the side of being a little too aggressive when they know what they‘re talking about.

ABRAMS: Yes, it‘s also I think, there‘s something Romney that‘s driving the press crazy and this is not bias. This is problems with the facts. I mean, every time we‘re doing these On The Trail segments, we were going to misstatements, it seems Mitt Romney keeps coming up again and again. But Rachael, you make the point about the sort of the way he‘s asking the question.

SKLAR: It‘s completely confrontational.

ABRAMS: Do you think it‘s happening a lot in the campaign?

SKLAR: You know, I don‘t think it‘s actually happening all that much. At least not that you know, that has been broadcast over the air waves. Maybe it‘s happening in privately.

ABRAMS: Here‘s a little more of the confrontation between Romney and AP reporter, Glen Johnson.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: He is not running my campaign.

JOHNSON: There‘s another lobbyist involved in your senior management too.

ROMNEY: Listen to my words. Alright? Listen to my words. I said

JOHNSON: But that‘s semantics, though. Running your campaign and giving you advice? He‘s on the plane.

ERIC FEHRNSTROM: Hey, Glen. Save your argument.

JOHNSON: He approached me Eric, OK?

ROMNEY: Let‘s talk. Let‘s you and I talk.]

JOHNSON: I‘d be glad to talk. Anytime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABRAMS: I think, David, it does seem that you know, this reporter is just not trying to get the truth, he seems really angry at Romney.

SHUSTER: Look, maybe he had a bad day and maybe the Romney

campaign didn‘t fed today. Whatever the reason was, but in any case, no,

as reporters, we should be adversary, our job is not to be the candidate‘s

friend or -

(CROSSTALK)

SKLAR: (INUAUDIBLE) not rude and provocative.

SHUSTER: But he knew what he was talking about. He was right Rachel, the reporter was absolutely right today.

SKLAR: Absolutely.

SHUSTER: What was he supposed to do? What he supposed to say, oh, I‘m sorry, Governor Romney but I‘m right you‘re wrong?

SKLAR: Rather than saying, that‘s not right, that‘s not true.

ABRAMS: Here‘s a Romney spokesperson walks over to the reporter and goes after him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FEHRNSTROM: Glen, you should act a little more professionally instead of being argumentative with the candidate.

JOHNSON: No, he shouldn‘t stand there and tell total falsehoods.

FEHRNSTROM: So, now, what he‘s telling is total falsehoods? Save your opinions. Save your opinion.

JOHNSON: It‘s not an opinion, it‘s a documentable fact. A senior advisor is a registered lobbyist.

FEHRNSTROM: Don‘t be argumentative with candidate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABRAMS: There should be a question mark on the lower through there, I don‘t know if they‘re going it for good.

SHUSTER: Come on. Don‘t be argumentative with the candidate. Don‘t be argumentative. What does Mitt Romney think is going to happen when he‘s president if all the world leaders is going to be nice and respectable. If he has a campaign had a problem with reporters being rude, what does he think is going to happen when he sit in the Oval Office?

ABRAMS: Is this happening a lot, David? On the trail, is this happening a lot?

SHUSTER: It‘s happening on occasion. But I would draw distinction Dan between a reporter who knows what he‘s talking about like the reporter today and of a fool and jerk like Bill O‘Reilly who try to push over a guy to get out of the way of Barack Obama and then, what does he ask Barack Obama is some insightful, hard penetrating question? No, he says will you be on my show? That is where you can draw a line. If a reporter is lazy and as silly and as aggressive, that‘s a problem. When the reporter knows what he or she is talking about, I have no problem with that.

SKLAR: And it‘s OK for them to be aggressive? My point went to behavior, you know? If the facts are great and I think that if you have the facts, that should be enough, you shouldn‘t pick a fight.

ABRAMS: David Shuster and Rachel Sklar. Thanks a lot.

SHUSTER: Our job is not to be friends with these people. If you don‘t ask the tough question, who would ask the tough question.

ABRAMS: Coming up: This could be the dirtiest campaign ever and there‘s still nine months to go...

From both Thom Hartman and Mike Malloy. Thom in his cool, intellectual style, and Mike in his typical high-decibel rant. But both pretty convincing.

I believe it. Let's face it, engendering racial conflict hurts both of them as individuals by playing to the stereotypes and preconceptions. It may well be disastrous for the Dem Party as a whole. And it's good for ratings.

What's not for a corporate media to like?

This really should not be about race or gender, though I am proud our two leading candidates are from historically politically under-represented groups. But when it comes to issues I really end up aligning with Gravel and Kucinich when I look at who I agree with on the issues. But Gravel is not viable, and Kucinich has no grip on reality.

Making any case for Sen. Obama on this blog is a dangerous thing to do, but I will speak my mind this time, though out of respect for Gen. Clark I won't post my own blog on this, I'll just respond to your points.

I was rather put off by Hillary's answer to what weaknesses she had; it's the sort of canned political response that turns me off to her. It wasn't as bad as Edwards who's one fault was apparently “caring too much about the poor”, but it was still pretty disingenuous. Obama’s response was pretty minimalist but at least it was honest.

Sen. Obama isn't as a experienced as Sen. Clinton, that is a pretty well established fact; however experience does not always indicate good judgment, look at JFK and the Bay of Pigs, or President Johnson and Vietnam. Experienced Presidents are entirely capable of disastrous mistakes, Bill Clinton and Rwanda, FDR and moving the Pacific fleet to Pearl Harbor. I won't even start on the missteps on the Republican side, that list is just too long.

You know I was sort of uncertain about Obama and trending Hillary up until about a week ago until something Obama said sparked a realization. He was talking about President Reagan, and how he had been a transformative president in a way that Bill Clinton had not and Nixon had not. And it dawned on me that what we need in America now is not just a change in presidents but a change in who we are and what we believe.

The last nearly 30 years have been defined by the so called Reagan revolution, Democrats need a comparable movement that reshapes the national tone and resets the national agenda. We are only now beginning to pull back some of those Reagan Democrats with candidates like Webb.

Senator Clinton has experience, but she is a deeply political figure, and she joined right in with Senator Edwards in taking cheap shots at Obama's comments about Reagan. And it's that sort of behavior that turns me off, it is good partisan politics, but frankly Obama has had a far more presidential tone in this matter than Sen. Clinton and Frm. Sen. Edwards.

Experience is not the end all and be all of a good president, they also need vision and the ability to convince people to do things they may not want to do; a quality sorely lacking in Senator Clinton. Obama will need good advisers, but at least he recognizes that, Hillary on the other hand touts her experience and says she plans to "run the government". Well I hate to break it but no American president "runs the government", never has and never will, the closest we have come to that is George Bush, Dick Cheney and their imperial presidency and it has been a disaster.

American President's govern as best they can by generating consensus and moving the legislative branch to tackle pressing issues. And to do that we need someone who is willing to get past partisan politics and look at the deeper issues. Experience is a plus, I won't deny it, but Obama isn't a rookie either, he sits on several important committees and spent four years in a nation dominated by a religion with which we have a lot of tensions to diffuse. He brings his own unique set of qualifications to the table.

And the thing about Obama is, everything we know that is bad about him, the cocaine use etc, he admitted, it wasn't dug up by Limbaugh and his ilk. The cocaine issue came from his book; the emails circulating now are based on a misrepresentation of facts about his childhood in Indonesia. On the other hand we have the Clintons... famous for among other things quasi admissions like for example: "I tried it, but I didn't inhale", or outright lies: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski" and obfuscation: "that depends on what the definition of is, is".

Now it may seem unfair to go after things which Bill did, but lets not delude ourselves, Hillary is taking the good things that happened in the 90s under Bill's watch and using them to paint herself and her campaign in a more positive light, but she can't just pick and choose the good and ignore the bad.

What Obama may lack in Experience he makes up for in good judgment, moral clarity, vision and the humility to recognize his own weaknesses instead of hiding behind politically convenient rhetorical answers or as in one case even laughing off Senator Gravel's complaint to her about Kyl/Lieberman, a vote that did not sit well with many progressives and I think was certainly not a laughing matter.

William Shakespeare once wrote: "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool" 

I think that quote sums up my argument in whole, run me off the blog on a rail if you must.