Ed, I'll bet that if Michelle Obama were referred to as a ho' (also a word used in street culture) like pimp...this would be an outrage...Wendy works with you...is she being "pimped out?" I was very offended by your comments the last few days about giving David a break on this issue...you are obviously more down on the Clintons who did nothing than on David...stop the Hillary/Clinton hatred....it is obvious on your show....don't take a stand that you won't pick a candidate prior to the general election...if you are going to talk the talk....you need to walk the walk...I normally listen everyday online and love your show...but am having a hard time listening to your biased opinion against Hillary...dude...you are starting to remind me of ol' Rush....Sandra was right today Ed although she got alittle out there at the end....

I'm put off by Ed's vehement hostility toward the Clintons, too. And his constant denial that he dislikes Hillary. It seems Hillary can't make a move that isn't whining or calculating or dishonest or opportunistic according to Ed.
I can't believe Ed considers objecting to the "pimping" remark is strong-arming the media, wouldn't ANYONE phone the network? Are the Clintons not allowed to do that just because of who they are?

I think it would be good for Ed to have a stiff drink and listen to his program from this side of the transmitter. Perhaps he might hear what we hear. I love Ed's show too.

I completely agree. Obama has great sound bites, but, then again, SO DID BUSH! Are we REALLY going to vote for sound bites again????? Oh, and isn't it lucky for Obama, (like it was for Bush) that the media will do the slander job FOR HIM, thereby leaving HIS little hands ALL CLEAN - JUST LIKE BUSH'S were with McCain. It's obvious Ed dislikes Hillary and no amount of denial will cover it. I can't even listen to him anymore. See ya Ed. Let me know when some common sense and A LOT LESS chauvinism is involved in the show again {

And NO it is NOT the same to say a young woman is being "pimped out" as saying a grown man - A military GENERAL, for gawds sake is being pimped out! Not the same at all. NO MOTHER would think so - none!

I am quite angry that our next President is AGAIN going to be decided by the media. It seems that if we the voter want to pick our own we are going to have to quit watching ANY of the media idiots who all have their OWN agendas.......and are too damned cowardly to admit it or do their jobs without persuing it.....Pathetic.

FYI the Clintons have put up with more bashing from more people than ANY OF YOU EVER WILL and you have no right to attack them over it even more. And now your bashing media matters??????? I'm done with you Ed. Done. Ever consider that MSNBC IS BIASED?????? Ah hell no you haven't.

It's enough to make ME vote for Hillary!

Anyone who votes for Hillary based on how a talkshow host characterizes her is not someone who's opinion I give a rat's patootie about.

Not for nothing, but I don't expect Ed to be completely objective. He's a talk show host, not a journalist, and I don't consider him to be bound by any sense of objectivity, not in what I would expect from a journalist proper (Here, I don't mean to disparage Ed in any way, shape, or form, but I don't think he would classify himself as a Journalist either....)

I know exactly what you mean, jlee. I didn't hear Ed's comments -- was he saying it's OK what David said, or was he making a case for not firing him over it. If it's the latter, then I would agree. The guy made a mistake and used a term that is used in a wide array of situations that have nothing to do with prostitution. In that regard, it can be forgiven as a poor choice of words, IMO...

I didn't hear Ed's comments, so I don't know what exactly he was advocating (see my post to jlee for details). But you are wrong to compare the term "ho'" (whore) to the expression "being pimped out". The former has only ONE connotation, whereas the latter is used in a variety of situations having nothing to do with prostitution! As such, the latter could be forgiven (after a suitable reprimand/punishment) as a poor choice of words. However I don't think he should lose his job over this. I wonder if David had referred to BILL in those terms instead of Chelsea if there would be such outrage? I believe that it was in that context (just referring to using attractive, likable family members to bring votes) that this expression was used...

We have 2 posters with a total of 7 posts between them and they think they have made a good case for Hillary!

It's okay to vent here, but bring us something to back it up.

Ed brings us information as to why he opines the way he does, telecommunications act of '96, Olbermann's two-faced criticism of Schuster, 'Pimp my ride' (TV show) and is now colloquial usage for the younger generation, did you hear wikipedia's entries...Ed gives opinions based on what's out there - not emotive reactions defending someone's honor.

I still think Schuster was a plant by the Clinton's to get sympathy...seems the only way her numbers go up. Why did we have a complete turnaround in neighboring Maine from the result in NH? Explain that logically. No tears, no sympathy, and therefore no women's vote.

Her campaign is in trouble, today could very well be the death knell.

He has a right to say whatever he pleases. He also should be honest and admit that he is beating the drum for Obama, and he hates the Clintons. It's the hypocricy that irks me. Put more bluntly, it's the lying. It's also out of character for a man I admire.

I couldn't agree more...I guess I had higher expectations for Ed....it is the hypocrisy from someone that I thought I could trust to be fair...

I don't see any hypocrisy.

The fair position is not necessarily the one exactly halfway between two positions. If the Hillary camp is doing things that annoy Ed fairness does not require him either to ignore those things or to invent counterbalancing grievances with the Obama camp. If I were comparing blankets, fairness would not require me to find as many flaws with one made of flannel as with one made of steel wool.

I hear a lot of talk about Hillary being unfairly attacked, but not many specifics about precisely what is unfair in the attacks. Hillary supporters would do better to address the substance of the criticisms of her rather than the mere fact that she is being criticized.

Don't worry... the media loves to destroy what it builds up... it's a sick national fetish. Obama will be targeted by the very people that are giving him a free ride right now. Obamania is going to be the downfall of this guy... which is a shame. He's just burning way too brightly and that just won't be allowed to persist.

McCain is going to be the next president just for this reason... I don't care what the "polls" say right now.

You are wrong in so many ways. The media will ride the Obama wave as long as it gets them all the positive feedback. Obama is NOT an empty promise, nor is he just a "fad" to be easily discarded for an old stand-by, cliche like McCain. Obama is a CONDUIT for a FLOOD of pent up frustration and anger at the MESS the REPUBLICANS have mad of our country. And as such, he will be vehemently defended by his diverse and numerous supporters. No WAY that another Republican -- the party that brought us and ruthlessly enabled 7 years of Bush tyranny and destruction of the very foundations of our nation -- is going to get back into OUR White House...

(I find it interesting how your stances on Obama are evolving as it looks more and more that he will be the nominee. Wasn't long ago you were saying that an Obama candidacy scared the hell out of Republicans and that he would easily defeat all. While I still believe that is true, you are beginning to take your righty position to attempt to prevent that fate... )

No honey, I'm a realist... and I've seen the media do its thing a time or two. Maybe hypersensitivity to appearing "racist" buys him a little time... but I doubt it. He might not have committed to much of anything, and he may stand for nothing but vague visions of Xanadu... but there are things that he has said and done that can be used against him. I don't know that Republicans are truly so scared by an Obama candidacy. The country remains nationalistic and this guy cannot be all doom and gloom and say things like, "we've lost" and get elected. Also, the naive nature of some people here to the race thing is shocking. On one hand you'll all acknowledge racism is an issue, and then on the other you'll say that it won't be a factor against Obama. Sorry, but that's not accurate... just ask some black folks what they think. Couple that with the guy being named Barack Hussein Obama and I wonder if people are ready for this much change.

Barack is going into a national election... not a Democratic popularity contest.

If you were a realist, you wouldn't call me "honey", because you would REALize that that is a condescending, sexist term used to disarm your target. You obviously haven't read or heard Obama's positions on the war -- he's NOT saying "we lost" and he's DEFINITELY NOT "doom and gloom" I couldn't imagine a more positive, forward looking, optimistic campaign platform or person than what we have in Barack Obama! And the name thing? Get over it. His name has been plastered all over the place. People are getting used to it. It has a nice "ring" to it, don't you think? There is NO WAY his name is going to sink him. Sooooooooo, honey, what say we just agree to disagree and just wait to see who's right (we already know the answer to that ) correct on this one....

No worries babe... it'll be fun getting to November

Oh yeah!

Hey, little man, it was not so long ago that Obama supporters were being called naive and unrealistic for believing that he could win Iowa, or South Carolina, or that he could possibly hold up against the invincible Clintons through Super Tuesday.

Being realistic generally involves an occasional glance at reality.

I do believe it was the latter...prairie.......and I have to say I think the thread poster here seems to be more upset over what she/he percieves as more "Hillary-bashing"........I am just so sick of this nonsense~!! This constant "playing the victim" by Hillary and her surrogates.......my gawd....they seem to want to have it both ways......The Clintons have keep Chelsea so shielded in her "ivory tower" so long, when they finally set her free........she still remains untouchable....she can talk and say all the wonderful platatudes about her mom....but don't ask the tough questions....that's out of bounds.........why put her out there at all? David could have used better terminology...but consider whose show he was on, and the commentator he was subbing for.......

I'm going to have to disagree with the charges in some posts here about Ed's Hillary bashing. For a long time, he was on the Hillary bandwagon, even when she refused to go on his show. I thought he was bending over backwarsd defending this bought out woman. Now if you want to call me a Hillary basher, please do so, because I make no qualms about my distaste about her support of Iraqi War finding, the nature of her political gifts and support and her underhanded campaign. However, I have that right as an American. Obama is far from spotless, but he has not committed the campaign slander perpetrated by the Clinton camp. Yes, the "pimp" incident was unfortunate and lame for a person not in the practice of employing this term to try and think he is being cool. But that is no reason to support Hillary. I have witnessed so much talk from callers and other, who would vote for Hillary merely because she has been picked on. Is this the basis for choosing a President? Sorry, but Hillary is unhappy that she didn't sew up the nomination right off the bat, as she anticipated. She doesn't own anything and does not deserve the nomination more than Obama. If she's nominated, in the end, I'll hesitantly vote for her, but not without kicking and dragging and hoping that she moves to where we need to be in erasing the damage of the past 8 years. I'm sick and tired of compromizing Democrats and their compromizing supporters.

I think Ed has been more then fair to Hillary. I find it interesting that in spite of his offer of free air time to speak directly to her base, she will not do it. Hasn't every other candidate? Why won't she speak to us? is she contemptuous of us? Does she have enough trouble just pleasing her Israeli and Neocon/war bucks base?
If we make the catastrophic mistake of nominating this war-monger, we will kick ourselves for years. I am appalled at how many people keep saying that we have two great candidates. We have one great one and one absolute nightmare. I encourage you Ed to say it like it is. To express the fact that a Hillary nomination would be a hideous mistake that would be salvation for the Republicans, and suicidal for Democrats.
In American politics we seem to like to envelope ourselves in comfortable delusions which we all reinforce by repeating certain phrases.
Well zoom ahead a few months and contemplate these phrases; "I never said I would end the war, just that I would bring home troops, which I have. I never said I wouldn't send them back."
"I never said that I wouldn't invade Iran and I made clear that I have far more loyalty to the unpopular government of Israel then to a bunch of lame progressives that I refuse to even speak to."
"How was I supposed to know that invading Iran would lead to global war and nuclear devastation? Just because US military experts said all military options lead to disaster, I never heard that. IF I KNEW THEN..."
There are good reasons why people who pay attention vehemently hate Hillary. She is essentially Dick Cheney in a skirt. Please, lets not learn this the hard way!
Oh and Ed, just remember when people chastise you for not genuflecting in front of queen Hillary that the appropriate response would get you in trouble with the FCC. You have been more then fair.

I have seen many predjudiced speakers try to aggrandize thier own opinions by trying to demonize or negate other people's opinions, by labeling or calling other people's opinions "emotional" or "subjective".

Many people do not realize that "predjudice" itself is not objective. Being predjudiced IS SUBJECTIVE. Being predjudiced is just as subjective as being emotional.

3 a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> bof a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective



JOHN FROM HOUSTON