I suspect Mr. Greenwald is less upset that some opinions are being stated (cf. the mention of Juan Williams below that go unmentioned) and more upset at what the opinions happen to be. In short, Mr. Greenwald is nothing more than a hack himself who is highly selective about his outrage.

There is no reason to "suspect" which opinions of Hume's I meant since I identified them very clearly -- specifically, one claim that is just factaully false and another which personally attacked Jack Murtha as senile.

Those points filled the entire crux of the post. Did you really miss them? Do you think Hume's claim about how Democrats are perceived is factually inaccurate (in light of the evidence I presented that it is)?

The reason Glenn is calling out Hume and not his counterparts on the left is because his counterparts on the left DON"T HAVE THE EAR OF THE PRESIDENT AND HIS POLICY ADVISORS!!! Hume, Kristol, Hewitt, Limbaugh, etc. obviously do. How many times does this need to be explained?

And for those who think Juan Williams is some left wing lackey, Media Matters has MANY choice quotes where Williams parrots right wing talking points.

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=juan+williams

Sorry about the late response, but I still disagree with the characterization of Olbermann as "partisan" - he is opinionated, of that I have no doubt, but the term partisan implies he is pushing the Democratic agenda. It would be more accurate to say he has rejected the Bush and specifically the neo-conservative agenda, and thus is roughly aligned with the Democrats as the primary political opponents to that agenda. It a bit like aligning with Britain and France to fight the Kaiser in WWI. America didn't become France or England in doing so, and clearly they maintained separate agendas, but they aligned on a cause.

For example:

But to the rest of you in the Republican Party:

We need you to speak up, right now, in defense of your country’s most precious assets — the lives of its citizens who are in harm’s way.

If you do not, you are not serving this nation’s interests — nor your own.

November should have told you this.

The opening of the new Congress on Wednesday and Thursday should tell you this.

Next time, those missing Republicans will be you.

And to the Democrats now yoked to the helm of this sinking ship, you proceed at your own peril, as well.

President Bush may not be very good at reality, but he and Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rove are still gifted at letting American troops be killed, and then turning their deaths to their own political advantage.

The equation is simple. This country does not want more troops in Iraq.

It wants fewer.

Go and make it happen, or go and look for other work.

Source:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16442767/page/3/

Consider your fellow Texan, sir.

After Kennedy’s assassination, Lyndon Johnson held the country together after a national tragedy, not unlike you did. He had lofty goals and tried to reshape society for the better. And he is remembered for Vietnam, and for the lies he and his government told to get us there and keep us there, and for the Americans who needlessly died there.

...

That president had his fictitious attacks on Navy ships in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964, and the next thing any of us knew, the Senate had voted 88-2 to approve the blank check with which Lyndon Johnson paid for our trip into hell.

Source:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15821138/page/2/

We have been here when President Woodrow Wilson insisted that the Espionage Act was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that Act to prosecute 2,000 Americans, especially those he disparaged as “Hyphenated Americans,” most of whom were guilty only of advocating peace in a time of war.

...

And we have been here when President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that Executive Order 9066 was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that order to imprison and pauperize 110,000 Americans while his man in charge, General DeWitt, told Congress: “It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen—he is still a Japanese.”

...

And Roosevelt’s internment of the Japanese was not merely the worst blight on his record, but it would necessitate a formal apology from the government of the United States to the citizens of the United States whose lives it ruined.

(ripping on the MCA)

Source:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/

Just a short perusal of his special comments, but here we have him criticizing past Democratic presidents, including liberal hero, FDR. Would Hume ever rip on Reagan? Not a chance.

Olbermann has a POV, and is not neutral, but I reject empirically that he is a Democratic partisan or takes instruction or guidance from the DNC.

Also, and I know you agree with this Mona, but just for others: Olbermann is very clear about his opinions, and his bias and never hides them behind some veneer of Journalistic neutrality. And as Glenn points out in reference to Juan Williams, no one would ask Olbermann to referee a debate.

Many of you are attempting to characterize Brit Hume as having more responsibility for balance as "host" of a news program.

But that is not the case on the Fox Sunday Morning panel program. That is the one that routinely features a panel consisting of Brit Hume (right-news), Mara Liasson (left-news), Bill Kristol (right-ideology) and Juan Williams (left-ideology). Brit Hume does not moderate that panel discussion. Chris Wallace does.

As for the Brit Hume weeknight news roundup, it is a lot less partisan and ideological than Keith Olbermann.

Still waiting for a list of the names of the great conservative voices at NPR...

As for instances of Juan Williams less-discrete utterances, Google "Juan Williams" and "liberal" together and see what you get. The list is too long for this space.

"Hume, Kristol, Hewitt, Limbaugh, etc"

Several weeks back I was surprised to see Paul Gigot on Fox Sunday. It was Hume, Kristol, Gigot, Wallace, and Williams. A fair and balanced lineup, as always. I was surprised, as I had assumed Gigot was dead. But he's not. Although he was extremely pale, as if he has not seen the sun in quite some time. Perhaps he's been avoiding it.