From the Left (CNN's Carville/Begala informally joins Kerry campaign)

Wash Post ^ | 9/13/04 | Howard Kurtz

[Cableguy]

As co-hosts of CNN's "Crossfire," Paul Begala and James Carville have made no secret of being partisan Democrats -- not that they could, since both men were high-profile strategists for Bill Clinton.

But as informal advisers to John Kerry's campaign, do they now face a serious conflict? Some of their cable rivals think so.

"If me and Dick Morris signed on to the Bush campaign tomorrow, the press would go crazy," Fox's Bill O'Reilly told viewers, adding: "CNN, they are not being honest by keeping those two guys on."

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann wrote on the network's Web site: "You can't actively participate in a campaign while analyzing it on -- Oh, sorry. I forgot -- I live in the past."

The CNN duo dismiss the sniping, saying they advise the campaign free of charge.

[Cableguy]

The section is near the bottom

[Keith in Iowa]

Imagine the Lib-Weenie-MSM screams if it were learned that Bill O'Reilly were giving freebie advice to the RNC...oh the hypocrisy!

[302damnfast]

exactly where it belongs considering the people it's about. :)

[clee1]

CNN is not being honest?

What a surprise! < /sarcasm>

[Arnold Zephel]

By using the word "informally" is that supposed to make this seem journalistically ethical for these two CNN employees to simultaneously work for Kerry and CNN.

Does that sound ridiculous to anyone besides me? How about this: Hey I "informally" had "sexual relations" with your wife while maintaining our friendship. It's OK right, because it was "informally".

If the roles were reversed and it were Brit Hume and John Gibson, then this article would be filled with innuendo and conspiracy theories galore. We would never hear the end of it. Suddenly journalist integrity would be in question. I doubt seriously informal would appear anywhere in the article.

[Wiggins]

James Carville, Amazing Colossal Idiot.

[tkathy]

The presidency is, first and foremost, about credibility and trust. The dims just don't get how they have lost in both categories.

[NYCVirago]

While I agree that if a Republican were to advise Bush, the shrieks of conflicts of interest would be deafening, I'm not too bent out of shape over this. What's worse to me is that Carlson and Novak are such ineffectual supporters of the conservative point of view on Crossfire. And IMHO, I find it more offensive that Carlson has announced he won't vote for Bush because W didn't immediately rush back to DC on 9/11. That should disqualify him from representing Republican positions on Crossfire.