Brief thoughts on Bill Clinton's marathon DNC speech.

Re Bill Clinton's 48-minute reprise of his Number One spoken-word hit from 1992, PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST:

I thought Clinton's too-long speech had its effective moments in making case for Obama's re-election--though it's too much to expect either Clinton or Al Gore (who touted his friendship with JP Morgan Chase's Jamie Dimon on Current TV) to apologize for NAFTA and repealing Glass-Steagal, helping create the mess Obama has tried (albeit mildly) to clean up and Romney/Ryan would only make worse.

More random comments about Andrew Sarris, Ann Curry, Matt Lauer, Joy Behar and Al Gore.

1. RIP film critic and auteurist Andrew Sarris--read his reviews in THE VILLAGE VOICE and THE NEW YORK OBSERVER and consider his books THE AMERICAN CINEMA and THE JOHN FORD MOVIE MYSTERY essential reading for those interested in film studies. 2. As Keith Olbermann mentioned on Twitter, it's sad that Ann Curry is enduring public humiliation by NBC/Comcast (news leaks) regarding her forced departure from the TODAY show. Yes, Savannah Guthrie might evoke (to Matt Lauer at least) the Lost Era of Katie, but Lauer and NBC News majordomo Steve Capus should have the sense (they're being paid enough)to realize that any alleged "chemistry" between anchors doesn't necessarily raise ratings or paper over the essential problem of TODAY doing too much wading in the shallow end of the news pool. 3. Al Gore and his partners at Current TV are now focusing on the Hail Mary pass of getting mild-to-moderate progressive comics to join the channel. John Fugelsang (who can be pithy on Twitter) is subbing for "rock star" Jennifer Granholm on THE WAR ROOM and Joy Behar is getting a five-night tryout before officially debuting this fall. If you see the Joy Behar ads, the impression is given that she'll be Politically Direct and free of any restrictions on content she had on her HLN series or may still have on THE VIEW. So last night, amid the horse race election-coverage stuff, Ms. Behar felt compelled to do a tabloid crap story about Kim Kardashian, Oprah Winfrey and Kris Jenner. Fine for ABC and HLN, but it was woefully stupid for Current TV--even considering them having Cenk Uygur do an on-bended-knee interview of Hugh Hefner, which the channel probably justified due to Hef having some progressive views.

David Carr abandons journalistic objectivity in latest Keith Olbermann article.

David Carr of THE NEW YORK TIMES, is a good writer/reporter--and a good Company Man too.

Here's his latest piece on the Keith Olbermann firing, which comes down squarely on the side of the Al Gore-fronted Current TV channel:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/keith-olbermann-machine-gun-for-hire/

Key passage from the article:
"No, the mistake that the executives at Current made was to think that by giving Mr. Olbermann a stake in the enterprise and a title of chief news officer, he would forgo the drama that has characterized his stints at CNN, Fox, ESPN and MSNBC. After all, you can’t rail against the Man when you are the Man.


But Mr. Olbermann is talent, and a big baby to boot — any reporter who has covered him could tell you all about that — so the idea that he would default to the good of the many over the needs of the one is just not in his nature. The title was used as leverage, nothing more, when Mr. Olbermann became dissatisfied and starting communicating with his employers through lawyer letters months ago. Mr. Olbermann is a ferocious fan of team sports, but that’s not how he plays the game."

Having said the above, Carr does own up to the problems of the Current channel (i.e. attempting to compete with left-to-center MSNBC with supercheap programming--now including amateur-video-level commercials for national-brand products).

But to me, it seems like the major problem is that--like Olbermann or not--Current hired him and promised him autonomy in terms of how the channel's news/political programming would evolve.  Then, Al Gore, Joel Hyatt and David Bohrman (currently having himself spun as a genius in the media for selling Current on simulcasting radio shows of Bill Press and Stephanie Miller--plus arranging the MSNBC TV simulcast of Don Imus, who, for reasons not to be mentioned here, was terminated from the network) apparently said, "No Keith, we have the autonomy, you don't."

In short, the Olbermann/Current situation is probably a bit more complex--with pluses and minuses on both sides--than you'll read in most media coverage.

And perhaps Olbermann now feels like a participant in THE HUNGER GAMES, where he's expected to play a game by agreed-upon rules, only to find management changes the rules to suit them and not their $10 million-a-year star player..

Keith Olbermann fired by Current.

This was just announced a few minutes ago, so very little is known about the reasons for Current's decision.  My theory is that the channel wants to be more centrist Democrat, so I'm thinking that Cenk Uygur of THE YOUNG TURKS--someone not afraid to disagree with President Obama--may be vulnerable to pressures from above.
In Keith Olbermann's case, he allegedly tends to fight Authority until Authority shows him the door.
[UPDATE] Via THE NEW YORK TIMES, Current TV's side of the story:
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/current-tv-dismisses-keith-olbermann/
Here's a post from the entertainment site THE WRAP:
http://www.thewrap.com/media/article/keith-olbermann-fired-current-tv-36679?page=0,0
[UPDATE]  Olbermann, via Twitter, tells his side of the story:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/olbermann-to-take-legal-action-against-current-tv

Wisdom from Matt Taibbi that won't be listened to/heeded by most people on the Left.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/obama-doesnt-want-a-progressive-deficit-deal-20110711

Two key passages from Taibbi's blog post:
 "The blindness of the DLC-era [the "centrist" Democratic Leadership Council] "Third Way" Democratic Party continues to be an astounding thing. For more than a decade now they have been clinging to the idea that the path to electoral success is social liberalism plus... laissez-faire economics – in other words, get Wall Street and corporate America to fund your campaigns, and get minorities, pro-choice and gay marriage activists (who will always frightened into loyalty by the Tea Party/Christian loonies on the other side) to march at your rallies and vote every November."
and
"I simply don't believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc. That they won't do these things because they're afraid of public criticism, and "responding to pressure," is an increasingly transparent lie. This "Please, Br'er Fox, don't throw me into dat dere briar patch" deal isn't going to work for much longer. Just about everybody knows now that they want to go into that briar patch."