Bill O’Reilly: ‘Sarah Palin Needs To Go To College’ (VIDEO)

Bill O'Reilly appeared on "Good Morning America" Thursday with George Stephanopoulos, where the two talked about the health care crisis and the landscape for the 2012 presidential election.

Stephanopoulos asked O'Reilly if, like Evan Bayh, he believes there's room for "someone to come up the middle" in 2012.

"It depends how articulate they are and how they're gonna handle all the slime factor," O'Reilly said. "You get into this game now, they're gonna tear you to pieces on both sides. Do you have the stomach for it? You wanna put your family through that? That's what scares them away. The press is so vicious now with a capital 'V.'"

Would O'Reilly be interested in running? He says no.

"I have more power doing what I'm doing than getting involved with the political process," he told Stephanopoulos. "Plus you have to kiss butt to get money."

As for frequent "O'Reilly Factor" guest Sarah Palin, O'Reilly says she absolutely wants to run but has to weigh whether she wants to put her family through the process. And, he added, she needs to study up.

"Sarah Palin needs to go to college," O'Reilly said. "Political college, world affairs college, and she is. She's hired a bunch of advisers and they're giving her a whole bunch of tracks to learn, because it is a sophisticated deal."
WATCH:

Earlier in the interview, O'Reilly acknowledged that health care needs fixing but argued that President Obama's plan is too expensive and thus risky to adequately address the issue.


Europhobic Response to Google Antitrust Issues – Not Productive

The latest bubblings of legal action against Google for anticompetitive behavior are, many believe, just the tip of the iceberg.

One thing that surprised me about some people's reactions to this, at least in the US, was the assumption that it was all about European companies and regulators being, well, European about things: envious, bureaucratic, anti-American, etc.

But that misses the point by a mile. The key point of comparison in the broader discussion is always Microsoft. And the biggest legal hit to Microsoft's empire came in the United States.

This week, some European companies are disgruntled with Google and some Italians are throwing a scare into Google execs by literally "jailing" them (albeit with suspended sentences) around some privacy legislation.

But when the real questions start being asked about anticompetitive behavior, they'll be asked on home turf, as they were of Microsoft. And those questions, mind you, require a titan like Bill Gates to stand there as a mere mortal and admit to the specific discussions and specific strategies used to attempt to push key competitors (like Netscape) out of business. That's the power of the US legal system, and don't think it won't happen someday with Google.

Chortling about hidebound Europeans might be comforting in North American digital circles, but that analysis is neither fair, productive, nor predictive of future outcomes. Google, inevitably, will be called on the carpet for many potential violations of antitrust. Not by the "FTC" for "misleading" disclosure of paid search links (sorry Danny, that's a dead issue). But - potentially - for doing exactly what Page and Brin warned search engines could do, in their legendary paper "The Anatomy of a Large Scale ...". Using their position as a monopolist to manipulate which major competitors get to show up, where, and how, in the mix of search results. And boosting their own properties relentlessly when others should be findable. Just for starters.

This being said, I'm never a fan of nuisance lawsuits and petty nitpicking. Time will tell if Google is inside the law in many different areas. I'll be back in a bit with some pro-Yelp thoughts, as they fight off silly conspiracy theories about "extortion" of small businesses. (Necessarily speculative, as court cases must be decided in court, where they belong.)

Joe Lapointe: Milbury, “Eurotrash” and a Russian Hockey Disgrace

Mike Milbury should not have used the word "Eurotrash'' Wednesday night to refer to the play of the Russian hockey team after it lost to Canada, 7-3, in an Olympic hockey quarter-final game.

The term borders on an ethnic insult and it stokes a negative flame of jingoism that often burns beneath the surface of an event brightly lit by a torch of world brotherhood.

But Milbury and other commentators were right to denounce the play of the Russian team. In the era of National Hockey League participation that began in 1998, no national side has ever looked worse in an Olympic tournament game than the Russians did Wednesday.

They quit and they quit early. The Russian coach, Vyacheslav Bikov, did not help by refusing to change goalies until it was too late and failing to get advantageous line matchups despite having the edge of last choice in personnel moves before faceoffs.

But Milbury was right when he said of the Russian players: "I was shocked . . . There was no heart, no guts, no nothing.''

Fans of the N.H.L. are used to Milbury's ungoverned tongue and aggressive behavior. As general manager of the Islanders, he verbally baited opposing teams and his own players.

When he played for the Boston Bruins, Milbury entered the seating area at Madison Square Garden with his teammates to fight Rangers' fans and famously was filmed as he beat a spectator with the man's own shoe.

Some viewers are saying Milbury should be suspended by NBC for Friday's semi-finals which pit the United States against Finland and Canada against Slovakia.

Perhaps that would be justified, but no more so than a suspension of Canada's Dan Boyle for his intentional and dangerous tripping of Russia's Alexander Semin.

Don't count on a Boyle suspension. With two consecutive victories, the Canadians have regained momentum in this tournament. They have home-ice advantage. The International Ice Hockey Federation is unlikely to do anything to rattle their cages.

Except for the Russian humiliation, Wednesday's four quarter-finals provided tremendous entertainment and exposure for the sport. Even NBC seems aware, showing full games on its backup cable networks and shelving plans for tape-delay telecasts in some regions on Friday. Instead, NBC will carry the events live, as it should with all Olympic events.

With snow pounding down atop the homes in some regions and winter winds howling, it will be a good weekend to put a few logs in the fireplace, heat up the hot chocolate and enjoy the conclusion to a special tournament.


CNN’s Campbell Brown Gets Lowest Ratings Of All Time Tuesday

Cable news ratings, February 22, 2010: Check out the highlights, and see the full ratings below:

• CNN’s 8pmET host Campbell Brown recorded her lowest total viewer ratings ever (since her show’s October 2008 launch) Tuesday night, with just 332,000 viewers. She had her 4th lowest average in the A25-54 demographic, with just 87,000. CNN as a whole had its seventh day of 5th place in prime time on all of cable news.

Bill O’Reilly had the top program, with Glenn Beck slightly behind at #2, on all of cable news in both categories.

Check out all the ratings below, and leave your own thoughts in the comments:

TV NEWS RATINGS: 25-54 DEMOGRAPHIC (L +SD)
Fox News CNN MSNBC CNN Headline News
5 pm

Beck

710

Blitzer

118

Matthews

84

Prime

84

6 pm

Baier

433

Blitzer

103

Ed Show

85

Prime

95

7 pm

Shep

451

Blitzer

84

Matthews

111

Issues

154

8 pm

O’Reilly

839

Brown

87

Olbermann

238

Grace

240

9 pm

Hannity

525

King

94

Maddow

240

Behar

143

10 pm

Greta

420

Cooper

170

Olympics

346

Grace

197

11 pm

O’Reilly

385

Cooper

119

Olympics

Showbiz

130

TOTAL DAY 380 101 145 134
PRIME TIME 595 97 255 189
Data by Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data.
TV NEWS RATINGS: TOTAL VIEWERS (L +SD)
Fox News CNN MSNBC CNN Headline News
5 pm

Beck

2937

Blitzer

532

Matthews

577

Prime

224

6 pm

Baier

2390

Blitzer

427

Ed Show

562

Prime

189

7 pm

Shep

1877

Blitzer

389

Matthews

604

Issues

420

8 pm

O’Reilly

3090

Brown

332

Olbermann

933

Grace

660

9 pm

Hannity

2162

King

413

Maddow

827

Behar

618

10 pm

Greta

1467

Cooper

450

Olympics

728

Grace

508

11 pm

O’Reilly

1127

Cooper

302

Olympics

Showbiz

307

TOTAL DAY 1506 365 501 324
PRIME TIME 2240 332 814 584
Data by Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data.


More Of The Craziest Examples Of Congressional Theatrics

Elyse Siegel contributed to this story.

Today is the big day: HEALTH CARE SUMMIT. Coming to you live! On C-SPAN! Television cameras pointed squarely on the legislative process, catching every move, every nuance, every twist and turn in this high-stakes health care reform drama.

And knowing this, you'd expect the participants to be on their best behavior, and strive to appear as dignified leaders, entrusted with a great responsibility. But the thing is, these Congresscritters are strange beasts. Train a television camera on them, and they do not suddenly rise to the occasion and present themselves as great statesmen. Instead, they grab stupid props and make idiots signs and act like dumb babies. And, as we've seen, sometimes, in the process of acting like dumb babies, they use actual, smarter babies.

Back in November, we dug up some great examples of the wack-a-doodle stunts that your elected leaders unleash on an unsuspecting world while in the eye of the camera. Since then, we've received a ton of suggestions for more, and we thought that today's events would be a fine time to re-up.

Once again, I'm thankful for the ace assistance of Elyse Siegel, who tracked down these and more. Enjoy the theatrics. Vote for your favorites, and if you have any of your own, send them our way.

Remember, this is a critical part of the whole "lowering of expectations" you should be doing as this health care summit unfolds!

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]


Is ABC Gay-Baiting DHS Secretary Napolitano by Calling Her “Big Sis”?

Is it gay-baiting to call the head of the government agency responsible for surveillance and airport screening “Big Sis”?  It is–according to Huffington Post’s Eat The Press Columnist Jason Linkins and Towleroad’s Andy Towle–when you are referring to the never-married Janet Napolitano and you reference Matt Drudge.

ABC is taking some heat for an online article that describes Napolitano as “[t]he former Arizona governor, dubbed “Big Sis” by one conservative blogger,” who “oversees more than 188,000 civilian employees, 200,000 contractors and an amalgam of 20 subagencies, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration.”

It is the reference to Drudge–who knows a little something about being gay-baited–that raises the spectre that ABC was furthering a suggestion/smear that Napolitano is a lesbian. In January, Drudge featured a picture of Napolitano and a picture of naked female scan on top of a headline that read “Big Sis Wants to See Under Your Clothes.” Andrew Sullivan, and others, immediately called “foul,” with Sullivan quipping “Isn’t outing people something Drudge might want to avoid?”

ABC’s reference to Drudge is what’s drawing the current heat.  Linkins said there was “no substantive reason” for ABC to include the reference, and suggested “[t]hey just want to smirk about Napolitano’s sexual back story which, I guess to their minds, has some important bearing on her ability to carry out the duties of her office.”

Drudge didn’t invent the “Big Sis” line. There are references to Napolitano as “Big Sister” going back to the beginning of her tenure at DHS. She does, after all, run the agency responsible for snooping in luggage and setting up scanners at airports.  And it was her agency that suggested, controversially, that conservative fringe groups were a terrorism threat and should be watched.

While the Big Brother/Big Sis is certainly a great parallel–especially if you worry about such things–it’s less clear whether that was the reference ABC was going for when it used the name and then name-checked Drudge. While it seems fair game to accuse Drudge of gay-baiting, does that accusation extend all the way to ABC just because they referenced him?


Bombshells Come In Threes? NYT On David Paterson…Again

Wow. Well Gov. David Paterson may be starting to wish that the New York Times had simply published a bombshell story about him as opposed to the three increasingly questionable stories that have hit the front page of the paper over the course of the last eight days. The accumulative effect of all these pieces may end up being far more damaging than one quick snap to the gut might have been. Time to stop apologizing?

Today’s piece, which ain’t pretty, once again focuses on Paterson’s shady aide David W. Johnson (subject of last Wednesday’s A-1 doozy) and whether or not Paterson personally intervened, or encouraged the State police to do so, to keep her from appearing in court to testify that she’d been violently assaulted by Johnson.

In the ensuing months, she returned to court twice to press her case, complaining that the State Police had been harassing her to drop it. The State Police, which had no jurisdiction in the matter, confirmed that the woman was visited by a member of the governor’s personal security detail.

Then, just before she was due to return to court to seek a final protective order, the woman got a phone call from the governor, according to her lawyer. She failed to appear for her next hearing on Feb. 8, and as a result her case was dismissed.

Many details of the governor’s role in this episode are unclear, but the accounts presented in court and police records and interviews with the woman’s lawyer and others portray a brutal encounter, a frightened woman and an effort to make a potential political embarrassment go away.

Last night, according to the NYT, Johnson was suspended without pay and Paterson announced that he would ask state Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo to “investigate his administration’s handling of the matter.” Which has got to be a particularly bitter pill for Paterson to swallow seeing as many people consider Cuomo to be the favorite in the upcoming race for Paterson’s seat.

The story after this point gets increasingly sketchy, in the what happens north of Bear Mountain stays there sense. The state police may have used intimidating tactics, Johnson apparently tried to avoid ever being served with court papers, this woman was not the only woman who had complained of being abused by Johnson, etc. In all this Paterson’s role remains elusive (apparently the NYT pulled back at bit overnight). However at the rate these stories are coming once imagines that may not be the case for long.

Questions of Influence in Abuse Case of Paterson Aide [NYT]