The Obama News Anchor

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

As if NBC could do something more to convince you it is the Obama News Network, its MSNBC election night anchor is apparently going to do a Special Comment attacking Hillary Clinton. One hopes he will urge her to leave the race just for the cherry on top.

I have always accepted that Keith Olbermann's Countdown show was a biased broadcast. And that he favored the progressive and Democratic point of view on things in his choice of stories, tone and reporting. He was the Dems' Faux Noise, but sticking to the facts (while admittedly ignoring others.) But I never expected him to become Barack Obama's Bill O'Reilly/Rush Limbaugh. But he has.

In some respects, his "Special Comment" tonight comes too late for Obama, as Olbermann is already thoroughly discredited as an observer of this campaign. Might as well have Chris Matthews do it. That is where Olbermann's credibility is in this race. Will I watch it? Honestly, no. I do not enjoy his broadcasts anymore. But more than that, I never really cared for his bombastic Special Comments after the novelty of the first few wore off. But some will enjoy it. And more power to them.

NOTE - Comments closed. A particularly poor performance by the TL commenting community in this thread. Thanks for nothing.

< Wednesday Open Thread | Electability? Momentum? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thanks for posting about this (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:23:40 PM EST
    Women are already furious.  Oberman scolding Clinton will be one more reason for us to rally around our candidate.  Ask Lazio how it worked for him to take a grown woman to task like she is an errant child.

    This sort of misogynistic crap worked when we didn't have the vote and didn't have our own bank accounts.  Guess what?

    I just have to say that (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:38:58 PM EST
    since I joined TL, I've observed the posters at TL and Kathy, you're one of my favorite posters (because you always have something good/relevant to say...hopefully my comment here isn't stricken as completely irrelevent).

    I just can't stand to watch KO anymore and it breaks my heart a bit...just because he had so much good anti-Bush stuff to say back in the day.  Ah well...had I know such anti-Clinton venom had been underneath all of that I sure wouldn't have stuck around for so long.


    you don't know what he's going to say (none / 0) (#7)
    by moe21885 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:25:32 PM EST
    and yet you're already calling it "misogynist"? Please.

    I'll call him a misogynist. (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Iphie on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:46:33 PM EST
    And don't need to see whatever he's going to say tonight to come to that conclusion. Lots of people stopped watching him after it became clear he suffers from CDS. I stopped watching him after one too many incidents made my stomach turn. I think the thing that finally pushed me over the edge was a discussion that he and a guest had about the number of Angelina Jolie's sexual partners. I also remember a comment he made about the Sex and the City movie that insinuated that the name should be changed because of Kim Cattrall's age -- implying somehow that because of her age, sex was out of the picture.

    That's like saying (none / 0) (#153)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:36:26 PM EST
    to an "observer" that an unreformed wife beater isn't going to lay another hand on his wife even though she's covered in bruises.

    Well, it's a good guess (none / 0) (#161)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:38:53 PM EST
    From last night:

    HOWARD FINEMAN: It's clear to me the Clinton people aren't going to back down. As you saw, they sent Maggie Williams out with a statement to defend Geraldine Ferraro who's defending herself. So this is the fight the Clintons want, the way they want to fight it.

    KEITH OLBERMANN: So the senator wants a clearly racist, clearly equal-opportunity-is-not-a-good-thing, that's-the-only-reason-he's-here kind of statement interjected into the campaign? It's not just somebody not judging a negative to something? This right now, this reaction right now is intentional?


    OLBERMANN: Does it not have disaster written all over it, or are we living in South Africa?

    It is revisionist history, to say the least, that the Clinton campaign is out "defending" her. Ferraro made a mistake. Clinton says she doesn't agree with what Ferraro said. Ferraro isn't someone Clinton can "fire." Comparisons to South Africa are simply outlandish.


    I don't get the South Africa remark. (none / 0) (#169)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:42:28 PM EST
    Just shows his ignorance, and I thought he was smarter than that.

    Not just women, (none / 0) (#27)
    by eric on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:32:42 PM EST
    me too.

    Maybe he'll say (none / 0) (#96)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:02:38 PM EST
    "Shame on you, Hillary Clinton."  That would presumably be ok.

    are you f-ing kidding me? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:05:40 PM EST
    "Shame on you, Hillary Clinton."

    Oh, God, I PRAY he says that.  Please, Lord Jesus, let him say those exact words.


    I thought I was the only one... (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:12:07 PM EST
    who kind of wants him to go outrageously over-the-top so he can finalize his own caricature with a few memorable master strokes of rabid foamy ranting.

    He is single handedly (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:23:43 PM EST
    Making me wish Obama loses every election left in his lifetime.

    He will make people more bitter not less.

    I know (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:46:30 PM EST
    I started out liking Obama very much, simply liking Clinton more.  

    Now, I'm not liking Obama so much. I will still vote for him if he gets the nomination, but with quite the enthusiasm I'd imagined.

    To be fair to Obama, some of the things that have set me off are not things said by either him or his campaign. That ridiculous op-ed from Orlando Patterson the other in the NYT -- likening purportedly "racist sub-message" of the 3am phone call ad to "Birth of a Nation" -- is an example. Uh, Orlando, that ad was not about scary black men lurking in the bushes about to kidnap white children.  I don't think the Obama campaign has "rejected" Prof. Patterson's injection of race into a national security ad, however


    it is truly bizarre (5.00 / 12) (#10)
    by Turkana on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:26:08 PM EST
    how so many once rational liberals completely lose it, once they're all in for obama. there are so few substantive differences between clinton and obama, so many obama supporters seem to need to demonize her, in order to rationalize their passion.

    The biggest difference is that Obama isn't (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:28:07 PM EST
    ready. That's why he has to talk about anything but the issues.

    That is becoming (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by vigkat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:36:22 PM EST
    more and more apparent as time goes by. I once thought I was missing something, but I think the something that I was missing is just not there.

    False (none / 0) (#145)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:34:17 PM EST
    Obama talks about the issues a lot.  Just because Clinton says it doesn't make it true.

    Except what he has to say (none / 0) (#168)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:42:09 PM EST
    about the issues sure does vary from place to place, so we STILL don't know exactly where he stands on the issues.  Heck, I don't think we could ever find out where he really stands on the issues, given NAFTAgate.  He could be saying that he believes in one thing but it could be "just words".

    Or vice versa (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:01:12 PM EST
    As an Edwards supporter, I didn't and still don't see a lot of realism in either camp regarding warts of candidates.

    Unfortunately the unspoken (5.00 / 6) (#131)
    by Boston Boomer on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:28:04 PM EST
    part of all this outrage is that a woman should not have dared to run for President.  I'm sorry, but that's what I'm seeing on the blogs and in the media.

    We see what we want to see (none / 0) (#136)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:30:41 PM EST
    Not necessarily what's there.

    Yeah, I can see that (none / 0) (#138)
    by blogtopus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:31:10 PM EST
    The problem they have with Hillary's campaign is the think she has a chance of winning, thus ruining everyone's day.

    and in the polls (none / 0) (#151)
    by tree on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:36:09 PM EST
    as well,

    The expansion of the gender gap is due almost entirely to changes in how men vote.



    Fanaticism on Display (none / 0) (#50)
    by Athena on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:44:03 PM EST
    Yes indeed - fanaticism is the best word to describe it.  I just read something at Daily Kult which called Hillary the George Wallace of 2008.

    One can almost see these people foaming at the mouth as they type their latest screeds.

    And yes, Keith has revealed a delight in attacking Clinton - analogies with Bill O are all the more relevant.


    It would serve Beep Beep right if... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:47:12 PM EST
    ...Billo did a special comment on his special comment.

    Could It Be (none / 0) (#171)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:43:24 PM EST
    that Obama's supporters have no real grasp of Obama from a policy perspective (a number of them are either neophytes or people who are confused by politics)  and combined with a dose of "Hillary" hatred and a heavy dose of hypersensitivity to any criticism of Obama, have nowhere to go.

    I've read comments (that's plural) from Obama supporters who claim that Obama is 'so different and wonderful' that he should never be criticized.

    I do disagree that there are only slight policy differences. IMO there are details that reveal a wide gap.


    By doing special comments (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by BernieO on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:27:39 PM EST
    all the time, they become meaningless. Walter Cronkite's comdemnation of the Vietnam War was powerful precisely because Cronkite never gave his opinion.

    Cronkite (none / 0) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:24:13 PM EST
    didnt do it to win a ratings war with Bill Orally.

    If Ferraro called him a Monster (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:28:30 PM EST
    She'd be gone.

    Gone from where? (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:51:23 PM EST
    Over at dkos people are demanding that she "be removed from office".  She doesn't hold an office at this time.  Should we remove her from her home office?  Or perhaps whatever office she may keep for her own private business use?

    Or are we to banish her from the United States for speaking her mind?  I mean I think what she was saying was stupid and way too complex for public consumption because it was really much more about her own story and the history she lived, but what is this hysterical appetite for a pound of flesh we are seeing everytime someone says something stupid?

    Why not call her stupid and move on?  If Obama's camp really is worried that people will think that Obama hasn't got "it" because of remarks Ferraro made - the way to counter that impression is not by calling attention to her remarks and in effect broadcasting them.  The way to counter her remarks is to make the case that he is accomplished, skilled, talented and ready to be President.  These are the moments I really worry about the Obama campaign's communications strategies.  They seem so easily sucked in to me.


    I enjoyed some of his Special Comments. (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:31:14 PM EST
    The one about Bill O'Reilly's inaccuracies on the Malmady massacre should be a journalism classic.

    And I enjoyed him attacking Bush because I have problems believing that the rest of the traditional media is objective about this cursed administration.

    Perhaps I was wrong to think that KO was objective to begin with.  I get so much biased disinformation from dk that I really can't stomach KO jumping into the echo chamber with both feet.

    (This week I've been cruising dk, thinking very disrespectful things about posters there and then coming here for the sanity.  I'm amazed that there are still people there trying to fight the good fight.)

    I think dk is pretty much gone (5.00 / 5) (#139)
    by Boston Boomer on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:32:24 PM EST
    as a place where there can be real discussion and interaction.  It's an echo chamber.  I've pretty much given up at this point.  

    I can't watch (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:32:35 PM EST
    I won't be able to watch.  Last night MSNBC called her Jason/Freddie Kruger (she just won't die). Said she was an adrenalin junkie, she likes taking it to the edge and coming back. (It's like autoerotic asphyxiation, ha ha).  Said if her commercial was 911, showing a mother with children in bed while someone was lurking outside (well, we know who would be lurking outside), then it is racist.  Their conclusion.. it was 911 not 9/11 and national security.

    Obama had a rough week in the media.  They are back after Clinton.  It would just make me cringe to watch and I would be forced to throw my teevee in the middle of the street and drive over it (like, 8 times).

    I guess your reasoning (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by tree on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:32:39 PM EST
    is that calling someone "lucky" is SO MUCH WORSE than calling someone a "monster"?

    Implying he is the beneficiary of (3.00 / 1) (#60)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:47:08 PM EST
    affirmative action,  as dog whistle politics?  

    I din't take it as a comment (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by tree on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:08:55 PM EST
    on affirmative action, especially since there is NO affirmative action program for politicians. But even if you did take it that way, do you seriously believe that calling someone "lucky" is worse than calling someone a "monster"?

    BTW, I'm a woman in a non-traditional field, and I was "lucky" to have an affirmative action program that got me in the door. I was and am totally qualified to do the work, and I do it well, but I'm willing to admit that affirmative action got me in the door in spite of stereotypical ideas that I couldn't do the job because of my gender.  You can call me "lucky" if you like, but calling me a "monster" is the ultimate dehumanization, and I wouldn't sit still for it.  


    Lucky to be black (2.00 / 1) (#90)
    by independent voter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    That is what she said. As if it is common knowledge that blacks in America get all the breaks, and much more preferential treatment than women.

    And Ferraro is (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    NOT part of her campaign. Much teh same way that Geffen is NOT part of Obama's campaign and it's not "his job" to tell his supporters what to say and not say.


    We aren't going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters.


    She did not say that (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Chimster on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:08:26 PM EST
    Here's what she said:

    He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.


    "Who he is" (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by badger on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:30:06 PM EST
    I don't want to go too far down the semantic rabbit-hole, but it's interesting that Ferraro said "lucky to be who he is", and all the people getting vapors took that to mean "lucky to be black" - the transform being, for Obama supporters it seems, "who he is" = "black".

    Considering "who he is" encompasses young, attractive, articulate (I'm sure it's racist to notice his verbal skills), Harvard-educated, US Senator, it's seems to me that a lot of the racism in Ferraro's statement is in the eye of the beholder. If you add in several million dollars, you'd also get JFK, and there's no question in my mind that JFK was also lucky to be who he was, even though he wasn't black.

    "Who he is", IMO also encompasses inexperienced, not a particularly progressive leader, or even someone who's shown much leadership in the Senate, and someone who's been the beneficiary of a very good marketing campaign. And that still makes him lucky to be who he is, but who he is is a lot more than just "black".


    If you honestly believe that (3.00 / 1) (#158)
    by independent voter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:37:55 PM EST
    how do you think she gets to the statement :the Obama camp is "attacking me because I'm white"?

    Forget about Obama v Clinton for a minute. Is this the kind of message any long term Democrat should be verbalising? I have to think that each and every one of you would be outraged at this dialogue if the Obama/Clinton part was removed from the equation. At least I sure hope so


    OK, the whole statement (3.00 / 1) (#115)
    by independent voter on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:18:02 PM EST
    if you insist
    "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
    That was the first day. And she has continued to defend this statement and imo make it worse since.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not how the Democratic party thinks.

    It seems to me (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by badger on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:41:55 PM EST
    that if Obama were a white man, he wouldn't be carrying 80% to 90% of the black vote against Clinton, so I'd take the statement "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position." to be objectively true.

    As to whether "objectively true" corresponds to how large factions of the Democratic Party thinks right now - you can make that judgment yourself.


    actually (4.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:29:30 PM EST
    that is not what she said.
    it was an idiotic thing to say however what she actually said was he was lucky to be who he is.

    Shuster's Revenge! (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by OxyCon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:33:05 PM EST
    Olbermann started going off the deep end at around the same time that David Shuster got reprimanded for his sexist attack on the Clinton's. That's when I stopped watching his show.
    I really wonder how he can even get guests for his show these days. Last time I watched, the guests seemed really uncomfortable with what was coming out of Olbermann's mouth.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Antigone on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:42:09 PM EST
    It's almost as if they had a meeting to deal with the Shuster fiasco and decided Tweety would ease up just a bit on Clinton and Keith would take over as No. l attack dog.

    He's lost me forever and I've told him so.


    I haven't watched Countdown for (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Boston Boomer on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:36:34 PM EST
    several weeks now, but I'm guess he doesn't have Craig Crawford on as much as he used to.  Or am I wrong about that?

    The reason he is dishonest is... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:51:37 PM EST
    ...that he should have defended Schuster at the time. Instead he made a point of condemning his use of "pimped out" and then going for the jugular. All the while ratcheting up the Clinton outrage so that he could have an excuse for his ultimate revenge...the "special comment."

    Do you honestly (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by eric on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:35:56 PM EST
    believe that it is Clinton's campaign tactic to say racist things to win over voters?  Remember, these are democratic voters who dont' exactly respond well to racism.

    No (1.00 / 3) (#67)
    by magster on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:51:08 PM EST
    It's her tactic to tacitly approve of such messages when made by surrogates, because they help her.  Clinton's I don't agree response is pathetic, and as every minute passes, it's more clear she wants this affirmative action dogwhistle percolating in the campaign.

    How does does racism help (none / 0) (#160)
    by Boston Boomer on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:38:21 PM EST
    Clinton?  Please explain how that could be.  

    How Racism Helps Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Kalkaino on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:48:29 PM EST
    As Carville observed, 'Pennsylvania is Philadelphia in the east, and Alabama in the west.'

    Hillary isn't playing to the Democrats here; the Democrats have decided, long since, for one or the other. She's playing, just as Bill did, to the Reagan Democrats, the Independents. It makes complete sense to send coded or proxy racist signals when courting them -- it's called the Southern Strategy and it's been around since Nixon.

    It's shrewd, if cynical, exactly like her stance on the war.  


    Democratic parties (none / 0) (#81)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:54:46 PM EST
    are not immune to racial bias, however comforting it may be to believe otherwise.

    No one (none / 0) (#91)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:00:43 PM EST
    Claimed that it was. You just said that any HRC supporter that is NOT racist would have ditched her long ago.

    No one but eric (none / 0) (#163)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:38:59 PM EST
    "Remember, these are democratic voters who dont' exactly respond well to racism."

    Well put BTD (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:40:07 PM EST
    I too used put up with Keith pomposity because he was willing to take FauxNews on our behalf, especially his BillO smackdown.  

    Moreover, he was using lots of Media Matters material, thus helping us grow the Progressive Noise Machine.

    Deep down he has always been an arrogant jerk, but at least he was our jerk.

    Now he has just become a Bill O'Reilly wanna-be with far lower ratings than the original.
    He has become his nemesis. I don't see how his daily rants on Hillary Clinton are different that O'Reilly daily vile accusation against Arianna Huffington and by extension the "progressive" blogs.

    Point of No Return (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Chimster on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:44:16 PM EST
    What is Olbermann thinking? I understand on his Countdown show that he's allowed to give personal opinions, whether it be for one candidate or another. But what I don't understand is what he hopes to gain from this. Yes, I know he wants to have Obama win, but that's only half of the democratic party that agrees with him. There's a whole other half of Democrats getting pissed off at him. If Obama wins, I'll vote for him for obvious reasons. But Olbermann has left me disliking him more and more. And since his special commentary tonight is the first ever taking on a Democrat, my dislike is turning to hate. I will not be watching his show again. I think he has reached a point of no return. He's making a mistake. He's taking divisiveness too far and shooting other Dems in the feet.

    You're Right, BTD, No Credibility (5.00 / 7) (#55)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:45:46 PM EST
    I couldn't care less what KO has to say.  He's sold his credibility for Obama's Unity Pony.  

    In light of Obama's fight against revotes in Michigan and Florida and this current push by his campaign and its supporters to once again paint Clinton as a racist, I feel better about Clinton's chances than I have since New Hampshire (which was immediately responded to by Obama's campaign working the racist meme over Hillary's "tears" and her MLK comments, coincidence?).  I had presumed Obama was still a clear favorite to get the nomination, but a clear favorite doesn't pull this kind of crap.

    And, IMO, this will hurt both candidates in November (funny how only Hillary is supposed to worry about how her attacks will play in November).  Obama is in danger of over-playing the race stuff, especially the recent crap he and Axelrod have been peddling about Clinton's 60 Minutes interview and the Druge photo, and that will limit his ability to make the same complaints in November.  You can bet the first time he cries racism against the GOP, they're going to say that's what he and his supporters always say.  Second, if Clinton is the nominee, this will hurt her by depressing the African American vote because he, his campaign, and his supporters have spent most of this year trying to convince Americans that Hillary Clinton is personally racist.  Unity, indeed.  

    This is how Democrats could lose the GE (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by ItsGreg on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:44:24 PM EST
    I've a friend...a life-long Democrat...who insists he believes McCain will win the general election. Not because he's a good candidate, but because of the vitriolic nature of the debate between the supporters of the Democratic candidates.

    When the race narrowed down to a qualified black man and a qualified woman, I was over the moon. It really seemed we were on the verge of making something historic happen. Not only were we going to break the presidential mold, but we were finally going to unite the Democratic party.

    But now it's all gone sour. Not because of the candidates, but because of their supporters. Only the Democratic party could take such a wonderful historic moment and turn it into crap.

    The truly sad thing is that we all KNOW what we're doing, we all KNOW we're pouring acid on the heart of the Democratic party...but we won't stop it. We all think the other guy should be the one to stop it.

    It's so sad.


    Agree completely (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by hillaryisbest on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:48:04 PM EST
    Don't watch (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by proudliberaldem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:49:35 PM EST
    I too am disspointed with KO.  I say we follow BTD's advice and not watch. Vote with your feet.  Write MSNBC and tell them why you're not watching.  If ratings is what they really care about, then let them know we're tuning out.  

    I don't think a boycott would work... (none / 0) (#101)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    These shows have such low ratings as it is.

    I don't watch anymore (none / 0) (#119)
    by superjude on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:21:19 PM EST
    It's much more fun to watch HDTV!!

    Olberbamaman (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:18:13 PM EST
    is doing his first "special comment" oh Hillary tonight.
    I cant wait.  for this one or for the many more I expect him to, over the next 4 to 8 years, regurgitate into the gaping maws of his moronic fans like a big self righteous bird in Miss Hathaway glasses.

    oops (none / 0) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:19:38 PM EST
    guess I need to read afore I post (or repost)

    Are You kidding Me (5.00 / 6) (#120)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:21:42 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton hasn't been able to take a deep breath in this campaign without someone jumping down her throat and damning her for deigning to breathe the very air of the planet.

    Given that, it's pretty easy to understand why some people would get jumpy when they hear that a media personality, completely in the bag for Obama, is about to unload on her in the same fashion he uses on a war criminal.

    Again nothing surprising (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by hillaryisbest on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:23:23 PM EST
    here.  I stopped watching MSNBC a long time ago.  And actively promote boycotting them and their owners GE.  His behavior is totally unacceptable.

    Do you really have that much difficulty (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Boston Boomer on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:24:10 PM EST
    understanding the difference between a political candidate and a TV news anchor in term of it is appropriate for them to say?  I can't believe you mean that.

    Oh that's the distinction? (none / 0) (#129)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:27:03 PM EST
    Because I was responding to Kathy, who claimed it was about gender.  Now you're claiming it's about profession.  You'll have to forgive me - figuring out why everything Clinton says is sweetness and light but every criticism of her is unfair and horrible is tough work.

    but mischaracterizing (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by tree on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:28:55 PM EST
    what other posters say is apparently easy, even second nature to you.

    I consider this MY comeupance. I liked (5.00 / 5) (#126)
    by tigercourse on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:25:06 PM EST
    Keith back when he was just screaming at Republicans because I agreed with him. I knew it was bad journalism and I found it pretty tiresome by the 4th or so special comment and by the 50th or so attack on O'Reily, but I still liked what he was doing. I ignored that he was simply a liberal version of conservative hacks. And now my hack has turned on me.

    Bad journalism is bad journalism, even if it's bad in your favor.

    are you old enough (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:27:48 PM EST
    to remember "White House In Crisis"?

    I know you didn't ask ME (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:34:18 PM EST
    but I'm old enough.  Ironically, here in Microsoft-land Redmond, our cable provider didn't carry MSNBC.

    Was he as nasty then as he is now?  I heard he quit because it was too nasty.


    quit what (none / 0) (#155)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:36:38 PM EST
    the show aired for several years

    and yes (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:38:06 PM EST
    it was nasty and purile and vapid and exploitative and completely uncalled for.
    as in the white house was actually NOT in crisis.

    Is he going to lie (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Foxx on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:39:37 PM EST
    that is the question.

    He already lied once that I know of (I don't watch TV), saying that Clinton had contacted Canada after it was clear that was not true and he knew it.

    I would expect him to lie repeatedly and spue a lot of unsupported insults.

    Walter, please come back. We need you! (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:53:34 PM EST
    It is so sad that we can't have a media that reports the news without bias.  I am so sick of it.  I gave up watching the talking heads on Sunday mornings years ago.  Then I quit watching the evening news.  Countdown was the only thing I watched.  But we took a vote in our house and decided that he was no longer worth our time; this was about six months ago.  His show became ridiculous.  If it wasn't about Brittney or Paris or some other stupd chick, it was something else stupid.  Then it segued into the Hillary Hate.  I took refuge in the blogs: DKos, Firedog, Josh, Digby, and TL.  The only one I now read is TL because it is the only voice of reason and sanity that I have found.  The posters here for the most part are intelligent and able to see that there are always more than two sides to an issue.  They are not rabid haters and understand that we need to keep our humility and our humanity or we are doomed.  Jeralyn and BTD, thanks for giving me a place to go.  It is very much appreciated.  

    Since Russert's questions in the debate.... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Oje on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:03:18 PM EST
    The whole "denounce and reject" schtick is getting old. Many Obama supporters turned their wrath on Clinton, not Russert, in the aftermath. I felt that were chomping at the bit for a "denounce and reject" gotcha against Clinton (evident in the final week of the Texas primary, but muted due to the expectations for wins in Texas and Ohio at the time). Now, though, it seems that they have found their prey, a former Vice Presidential candidate in the Democratic party.

    Since the Obama campaign signaled its intent to moount a new counter-attack, the serial accusations of racism have not ceased among Obama supporters and staffers. Obama himself is now in public engaging a minor contributor to Clinton's campaign for political leverage. My sense is that the Obama campaign settled on a new strategy to attack Clinton that exploits Clinton Derangement Syndrome in the MSM.

    In that frame, Keith Olbermann, tonight, will go on national teevee and give his best impression of Atticus Finch in an effort to protect his candidate from all the racist white women marching to the orders of the Clinton campaign. Apparently, our Party will be saved by a righteous contingent of white men who are manly enough to right the wrongs of femi-racism in the Democratic party... or just vote for McCain.

    i emailed ko today and told him (4.80 / 5) (#1)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:19:22 PM EST
    he had lost many core supporters. i also asked he stop using murrow's sign off as he doesn't deserve to use it.

    Hypocrisy? (1.00 / 3) (#24)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:32:15 PM EST
    Not sure how you can criticize the guy for shilling. Don't you do the same thing as Olberman here at TL. Granted yours is a rather lite, less rancorous version, but basically the same.

    I guess it's a matter of exposure (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by blogtopus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:40:03 PM EST
    If Hellothere reaches millions of tv sets tonight, please do let me know.

    No It Is A Matter Of Intent (1.00 / 2) (#41)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:41:08 PM EST
    self righteous! (3.00 / 1) (#127)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:25:25 PM EST
    when we start getting his salary (4.75 / 4) (#128)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:26:47 PM EST
    we can talk about comparisons

    The truth about Keith: It was clear to me early (4.20 / 5) (#21)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:31:10 PM EST
    At Daily Kos, I said the following even back then:

    The truth about Keith (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:high uintas, Nelsons
    he's not very objective.  His tone of voice often betrays his real opinions and biases for better or worse, even when he's just trying to do "straight analysis"

    I could pretty much tell how he feels about almost any topic he brings up after a few minutes or even seconds.


    always thought he was biased (none / 0) (#29)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:33:23 PM EST
    despite agreeing with him on most of his commentary and analysis.  I have never been a fan of biased journalism, regardless of which side of the fence the "journalist" sits on.

    But let me say this... if they ARE going to be biased, then I'd prefer they would just disclose it and be open about it.  I don't hate Sean Hannity that much for example.


    Its Opinion (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:38:03 PM EST
    Like the op-ed section. That is different from reporting news. Opinion in this vein is always biased.

    Keith does both, so I am going to disagree (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:43:19 PM EST
    If you didn't think part of Keith's job is  "reporting news" you must not watch MSNBC all that much.  Consider yourself blessed.

    Keith Olbermann anchors election night coverage, does straight news segments, interviews with elected officials, and breaking news.  He does NOT merely do op-ed.

    His biases are betrayed by his questions, voice inflection, and what he focuses on regardless of which role he assumes at that network.


    Maybe he's just trying to balance out (2.00 / 1) (#37)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:38:40 PM EST
    the New York Times, whose bias is just as obvious.

    Balance out? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by blogtopus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:41:29 PM EST
    Honestly, do you think the NYTimes makes up for several news anchors and more than one major cable network? In these United States?



    Yep, the most influential paper in the country (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:50:31 PM EST
    easily balances out a cable network and a few anchors.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by blogtopus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:34:56 PM EST
    We have reached a point where we have disagreed on whether the sky is blue or not, so I'm not going to try anymore. I won't waste your or my time.

    So you are saying (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by Boston Boomer on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:43:02 PM EST
    that the NYT, which printed gossip about the Clinton's marriage on page 1 above the fold, which published an op-ed yesterday that was unbelieveablely over-the-top in accusing Hillary Clinton of racism--in an ad about national security balances out MSNBC???  What part of the NYT coverage does that?  Maureen Dowd?  Frank Rich?  Oh, I guess you must mean Paul Krugman?  He balances out the entire broadcast news media?  OK.

    You (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:42:16 PM EST
    mean like Dowd, Rich and the editorial that compared HRC's ad to the KKK and "Birth of a Nation?" That bias?

    No, I'm referring to (1.50 / 2) (#63)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:49:28 PM EST
    the wholesale adoption of Clinton talking points about Obama in the weekend story, and the headline today that couldn't even acknowledge that Obama won Mississippi.  Rich and MoDo are on the editorial page, and have joined the frothing Krugman.  I distinguish between editorial comment that is what it says it is and editorial comment disguised as news.

    Funny. (none / 0) (#3)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:23:34 PM EST

    So what was Clinton's response to (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:26:06 PM EST
    Ferrarro's comments?

    That's not a question for you, btw.

    "plague on both our houses" (none / 0) (#17)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:29:34 PM EST
    before pivoting and turning it into an attack on Obama.

    I certainly didn't see a denounce and reject.


    Like to see the whole (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:30:16 PM EST
    Comments actually.

    hardly a denunciation OR rejection (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by moe21885 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:55:17 PM EST
    Williams's statement includes this reaction from Clinton: "I do not agree with that and you know it's regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides say things that veer off into the personal. We ought to keep this focused on the issues. That's what this campaign should be about," she said today. Williams goes one step further and suggests that Obama's campaign is the one breaking the rules. "Sen. Obama's campaign staff seems to have forgotten his pledge. We have not," Williams said, "And, we reject these false, personal and politically calculated attacks on the eve of a primary."

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    It stands to reason if "Of course not" and repeating "No" 8 times, if it stands to reason that that doesn't mean "No"....

     then it only stands to reason that  "I do not agree with that" means something else other than that too!!!!!

    I really wish when this campaign started and Geffen called the Clinton's liars, Obama could have mustered at least one iota of courage to just say what Clinton said above:  "I do not agree with that."  And he couldn't even say that Much!!!!!!!

    Thanks for providing the whole set of comments.


    Or how about (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    saying he didn't agree with McClurkin?

    Is Ferraro part of the Clinton campaign?! (none / 0) (#18)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:29:49 PM EST
    Ferrarro is to Clinton (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:31:01 PM EST
    As Geffen is to Obama.

    Obama never claimed to be responsible for Geffen's comments.


    Serious (none / 0) (#11)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:27:03 PM EST
    Are you serious or are you being sarcastic?  If you are serious, I will say she needs to stay in. Now, the opinions are fair and balanced.

    Well, maybe this one is extra-special. (none / 0) (#15)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:28:36 PM EST

    Fuel to the fire (none / 0) (#36)
    by blogtopus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:38:09 PM EST
    All it will do is harden the wall between the Obama supporters and the Hillary supporters. Both will dig in their heels.

    KO obviously feels very strongly about this, despite the lack of equally strong factual support for it. I don't fault him for his opinion, just that he gets to send it across millions of tv sets with no apparent rebuttal.

    I didn't complain when he was venting on about Bush; I applauded him for it. But he had the support of facts. This time he does not, and I wonder what made the difference to him, that he should feel that he is on safe ground here.

    He is an immigrant from ESPN, so that might explain any sexist ideas he might have under that veneer.

    this is a sickening comment (none / 0) (#87)
    by moe21885 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:57:55 PM EST
    And I hope one of the moderators here finds it and deletes it. The idea that sports fans, men, or ESPN are inherently sexist, or deciding that KO's comments will be "sexist" before you even hear them, has no place in reasoned debate.

    hahahaha (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by blogtopus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:36:45 PM EST
    Wow. Nope, I would never associate sports with sexism. NEVER. EVER EVER EVER.

    What planet? Really.


    all right, moe (none / 0) (#95)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    what do YOU think Oberman is going to say tonight?

    whatever it is (none / 0) (#165)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:39:45 PM EST
    he will say it with utter conviction.

    Oh geez. (none / 0) (#42)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:41:22 PM EST
    Every other week. Like clockwork comes the call for HRC to drop out. Usually after a big win by her immediately followed by an Obama win. Oh my. Drop out? Why? All the Dems want this to go on except for Obama's hard-core group.

    rooge--exactly (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:49:18 PM EST
    If she'd just stop winning, then he'd have the nomination tied up!

    Ha (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:56:25 PM EST
    Good one.

    Yes... (none / 0) (#102)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    well for the good of the "party" ie. Obama and his ardent supporters, HRC  should drop out. How  dare she stand in his way?!

    Thank you (none / 0) (#44)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:42:07 PM EST
    Thank you for your comments.  I happen to agree and get tired of getting beat up.

    Beep Beep. nt (none / 0) (#52)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:44:54 PM EST

    He's playing to his fanbase (none / 0) (#68)
    by stillife on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:51:15 PM EST
    Isn't there an Olbermann-Obama website?  I think I heard that somewhere.

    But what if Obama loses? (none / 0) (#172)
    by Chimster on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:44:14 PM EST
    What happens to Olbermann's show?

    Keith Olbermann is a chair on your Finance (none / 0) (#75)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:53:14 PM EST
    Committee?  Fire him then!

    This is NOT an Open Thread (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:56:05 PM EST

    I have now deleted more comments (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:16:12 PM EST
    than remain visible.

    Those of you who want to do dkos style fighting, GO THERE.

    It will not be tolerated here.


    I understand what you're trying to do here (none / 0) (#166)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:40:23 PM EST
    On this site.

    And I have a lot of admiration for it, seriously, but I also think it's unrealistic to think this issue can be discussed without people getting angry and bitter.

    What Olbermann says tonight is going to make a lot of people angry.  It's going to make Obama supporters even more angry at Clinton, and Clinton supporters even more angry at the Obama campaign movement.

    If there is something posted on any blog about it, then I would expect any of those blogs aspiring to the same modicums of discourse will also be spending a lot of time deleting comments.


    you know (none / 0) (#140)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:32:29 PM EST
    its still saying open thread.
    at least on my computer.

    opps (none / 0) (#143)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:33:55 PM EST
    I guess there is a little less than sign which means the previous thread was an open thread.
    I thought it was an open thread too.

    flair and unbalanced (none / 0) (#99)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:03:08 PM EST
    KO is obviously now a comical character of cable. He jumped the shark long ago. I didn't mind so much when there was crazy O'Rreilly on the other side of him. They make a fantastic pair. The real problem is that there is no balance in the case of Obama vs. Clinton. Where's the wacko spewing anti obama idiocy in favor of Hillary to balance the KO crazy? We need some balance to Keith. Maybe MSNBC could find someone for that role for the Tucker slot.

    I cannot wait (none / 0) (#105)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:06:22 PM EST
    to see what SNL does with this.

    Here's one of the problems (none / 0) (#112)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:12:56 PM EST
    A news anchor, a national media personality is in the business of scolding anybody.

    It is a sad fact (none / 0) (#125)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:24:21 PM EST
    that the pompous windbaggery that is KO's stock-in-trade has been part of cable TV for the past 15 years.  I've never liked KO because I don't think a lefty Bill O'Reilly is really a great thing for lefty causes.

    I don't think such sanctimony is particularly appealing when Hillary Clinton does it either.


    South Africa lets see what the FCC might believe.. (none / 0) (#113)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:15:15 PM EST
    His mistaken belief that the largest demographic in the electorate will allow itself to be exploited through baseless hate filled attacks intended to intimidated and stifle discussion of any candidates singular attributes with KO  outrageous ignorant characterization of Apartheid systems on the public airways will not work.  These scurrilous inflammatory charges directed at two demographics can have unintended consequence, hate and fear spewed by commentators like KO no matter how eloquent he believes him self to be on public airwaves is a danger to political freedoms and discourse.  I am adding the FCC to my writing campaign this round the KO South Africa reference from last night is a problem.

    I can tell you what would not (none / 0) (#121)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:22:05 PM EST
    offend me
    if Olberbamaman did a "special whine" about Obamas efforts to disenfranchise voters.
    that would not offend me at all.

    I'm sure it wouldn't (none / 0) (#133)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:29:04 PM EST
    Just as a special whine explaining the distinction between straw polls and genuine elections wouldn't offend me.  This seems pretty off-topic though.  Almost as if you're reaching for whatever you can think of to slam Obama.

    how (none / 0) (#137)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:30:46 PM EST
    is talking about a news anchor in a new anchor thread off topic?

    when it's a transparent pretext (none / 0) (#149)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:35:38 PM EST
    to bring up the "disenfranchisement" nonsense.

    Okay, we know your opinion about Keith (none / 0) (#141)
    by digdugboy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:33:07 PM EST
    Now what's your opinion about Ferraro's statements, and the Clinton campaign's response to them, including Hillary's?

    Isn't it more important to discuss the content and implications contained in those than it is to say "look at Keith Olbermann! Look at Keith Olbermann!"

    I wrote a post about it (none / 0) (#144)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:34:03 PM EST
    I think (none / 0) (#148)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:35:30 PM EST
    they are a little troubling.  more the response than the actual statements.
    however I dont necessarily disagree with anything she said I just think it was not a very smart thing to say.

    LOL, but this thread is about KO... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:35:50 PM EST
    ...this blog is pretty strict about sticking to topic.

    This comment is deleted for (none / 0) (#142)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:33:16 PM EST
    complaining about deletions. Do that in e-mail.

    MSNBC is dead to me (none / 0) (#180)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:59:06 PM EST
    Seriously. The network is in the bag for Obama. Keith is a shill out to get ratings, but hopefuly this leads to a downfall of his show. That would be great.

    So-Was Keith O "Telling the Truth" (none / 0) (#182)
    by TearDownThisWall on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:03:27 PM EST
    when he's been attacking the bushies for the last 4 plus years?

    .....i thought so

    In the interest of fair play... (none / 0) (#183)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:07:23 PM EST
    Roland Martin from CNN has this dazzling piece of op-ed journalism.


    Seriously.....any Truth to the Rumour (none / 0) (#184)
    by TearDownThisWall on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:24:08 PM EST
    that Keith will be changing his last name to Obablermann?

    KO (none / 0) (#185)
    by joyce1 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:46:20 PM EST
    For months I thought I had finally found an honest and fair journalist in the msm. Well, after hearing Olbermann bash Hillary and call her a racist night after night, I finally had enough. I did not watch this week except tonight I peeked in at the end of the show and when he started his rant, I switched him off. Cannot stand the guy anymore. Msnbc is part of the Obama campaign, absolutely!