Dem Dems Dem Dems -- Dem Dum Dems

Men. Gotta love 'em. They'll find competition in chewing food, spitting, throwing a ball, and in writing on a topic they overheard before the news has even reached their ears. The battle of egos in the Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman columns on MSNBC.com today are very telling about what each writer really wants to do: be the reason why Obama succeeds in tonights Democratic Presidential debate. Like whispering sweet nothings in his ear while msassaging the shoulders of a heavyweight fighter, both men will likely take the credit for watching Obama train -- and if Obama succeeds in winning the debate, each can say they were listened to by the Presidential candidiate.

Last I heard, Matthews and Fineman were journalists, albeit, given free reign in their spheres. Fineman is the Editor of Newsweek, and Chris Matthews is the affable crumudgeon who loves his own voice over that of the people he is purported to be interviewing on his show, "Hardball."

Now, they want to change careers and be Campaign speech writers, and both have failed miserably. Matthews writes a speech that emphasizes the "rut" we are in in Iraq. He says the word "rut" five times. Not only is his speech sophomoric and un-presidential, it is more testimony of the need for Matthews to be heard, beyond his news show that airs at least three times per day. His words are short crisp, trite, and pithy. I would hope speech writers would spend their time writing more eloquently. To increase his credibility, he then lists his credentials as a speech writer, as a Senate staffer for two senators. Yeah, well, I was a cheerleader once. That was then. This is now. Fortunately for America, we're more sophisticated than Matthews believes. My advice to Matthews: who asked you?

Mr. Fineman fares no better. He cites that he came up with a compilation of "wise" suggestions uttered to him while "chatting with staffers and supporters in various Democratic camps." Within several sentences of stating this he mentions the opinions of a "dinner-party companion." And this is worthy of printing? You're talking to us about your friend's views, and purport to give a candidate advice on the topic?

In attacking Hillary, Fineman suggests, Obama must do so, "with sorrow," and that his suggestions are not made with any personal animus. He must then delineate where he and Ms. Clinton diverge on key issues - if there are any. Wow, that's heavy, Mr. Fineman. The condescension of both writers is palpable. Why no advice for Edwards? What about Kucinich or Dodd? They're the ones that could use the advice.

Me thinks England might be asleep while a major upset could be in the offing. But hey, I know nothing and write to say the same. I'm Jane Q Citizen. But Fineman and Matthews, as well-read and influential journalists, have displayed a bias to help Obama, in a condescending, little-helpful writing that gives them thousands of readers.

I say, politely, please SHUTUPMEDIA. We're trying to think. We don't care what you think. We are thinking about what the candidates think. And you have no idea. Get out on the street, not your cocktail parties, and talk to real America.

Sphere: Related Content