The Obama administration claims that Fox isn’t a real news organization because, well, I guess it’s because they aren’t in love with Obama enough. It’s the only thing that I can see. Instead of regurgitating the White House’s talking points, the network reports the news and sometimes the news isn’t always positive for the president. One of the big criticisms from the White House is that the Fox Broadcasting station didn’t carry Obama’s health care speech to the join session of Congress. The White House doesn’t seem to realize that the Fox News Channel and the Fox Broadcasting Station are two separate channels.

This is a very odd strategy on the part of the White House. What does it get them, really? Well, it gets their leftist base salivating, which then directs attention away from the White House’s actions that upset the base, such as Afghanistan, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Guantanamo Bay, and rendition. However, it also makes the White House look small and petty. Instead of being above the fray, as the president should be, the White House is wiggling around in the gutter.

In the end, though, all this whining will do is just drive more viewers to Fox News out of sheer curiosity, which I’m sure Rupert Murdock loves. All the controversy will increase the channel’s already that high ratings. According to Nielson, FNC has a loyal viewership that dwarfs that of CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC combined. So while the White House tries to marginalize the news outlet with its typical Chicago style politics, it is in reality giving the channel a great opportunity to expand its audience even further.

Hat tip: Instapundit

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that –

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!

MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.

SCARBOROUGH: Your job is the make this presidency work?

MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency.

Chris Matthews and the others on MSNBC have lost that loving feeling for Obama. Jim Geraghty has the details. Here’s a portion:

More Fineman: “Despite his high approval rating and obvious intellect and goodwill, he hasn’t quite yet seemed to convey the sense that he knows the way forward and that he can get us there . . . I thought the first fifteen minutes of this show were devastating. Not that Jim Cramer is the only person they have to convince, but they have to convince people that they know what they’re doing, that they’re not just feeling their way forward.” Robinson points out that they are feeling their way forward.

Matthews: “I thought 8,000 was the floor, and it looks like 6,000 is the floor. People are angry, I’m getting angry.”

Read all of Jim’s post. It’s only been a month, and already Obama’s biggest fans in the media are losing patience with amateur hour at the White House.

Hat tip: Sister Toldjah

As I have repeatedly said in this column, I have never had the slightest problem in understanding Sarah Palin’s meaning at any time. On the contrary, I have positively enjoyed her fresh, natural, rapid delivery with its syncopated stops and slides — a fabulous example of which was the way (in her recent interview with John Ziegler) that she used a soft, swooping satiric undertone to zing Katie Couric’s dippy narcissism and to assert her own outrage as a “mama grizzly” at libels against her family.

Ideology-driven attacks on Palin became clotted liberal clichés within 24 hours of her introduction as John McCain’s running mate. What a bunch of tittering lemmings the urban elite have become in this country. From Couric’s vicious manipulations of video clips to Cavett’s bourgeois platitudes, the preemptive strike on Palin as a potential presidential candidate has grossly misfired. Whatever legitimate objections may be raised to Palin on political grounds (explored, for example, by David Talbot in Salon) have been lost in the amoral overkill that has defamed a self-made woman of concrete achievement in the public realm.

And let me take this opportunity to say that of all the innumerable print and broadcast journalists who have interviewed me in the U.S. and abroad since I arrived on the scene nearly 20 years ago, Katie Couric was definitively the stupidest. As a guest on NBC’s “Today” show during my 1992 book tour, I was astounded by Couric’s small, humorless, agenda-ridden mind, still registered in that pinched, tinny monotone that makes me rush across the room to change stations whenever her banal mini-editorials blare out at 5 p.m. on the CBS radio network. And of course I would never spoil my dinner by tuning into Couric’s TV evening news show. That sallow, wizened, drum-tight, cosmetic mummification look is not an appetite enhancer outside of Manhattan or L.A. There’s many a moose in Alaska with greater charm and pizazz.

I will admit one of the reasons I quoted this part of her answer is because of her take on Katie Couric. I chuckled, and after only 1 cup of coffee  that’s an achievement, when I read that paragraph because her opinion is in line with my opinion of Katie.  That Camille has the same opinion confirms to me that my feelings were honest and objective and not a reaction simply based upon my conservative view of things.

My primary reason for quoting her, though, was her take on Sarah Palin. Her opinion here is an opinion she’s held for some time and I’m thankful there is still a liberal out there who is willing to be honest about the Governor. It’s obvious Camille, unlike so many in the liberal establishment, is not intimidated by her. But, then again, I don’t think Camille is intimidated by anyone.