home

Olbermann Comments on Hillary Causing Stir

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:27:51 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Keith Olbermann's latest: A discussion with Howard Fineman about the need for a superdelegate to "take [Clinton] into a room and only he comes out."/p>

Bloggers say he called for Hillary's murder. Here's a different take by RiverDaughter at Confluence:

Ok, so I interpret your statement to mean that you would like a superdelegate to take Hillary Clinton into a room and somehow intimidate her, you don’t specify how, to drop out of the race and that at the end of this process, only one of them, preferably the superdelegate, would emerge.

Hyperbole? A figure of speech? Sexist? Or a call to snuff her out?

< Double Standards Part A Jillion | 3,000 Crack Cocaine Sentences Reduced To Date >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Olbermann Comments on Hillary Causing Stir | 196 comments (196 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Hyperbole and sexism. (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:31:27 PM EST
    Olbermann is a blowhard. His comments were crass and sexist, but I'm sure he did not mean to imply a death threat.

    Me, either (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:36:54 PM EST
    He's just getting nailed for being colorful.  Sort of like they do to Bill Clinton.

    The reality is that real people "get" Bill and they "get" Keith, too.

    NBD.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, I get him. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:46:55 PM EST
    ....now.

    [ Parent ]
    hyperbole, not sexism (none / 0) (#69)
    by jerry on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:01:51 PM EST
    In reading only the words, it's just hardball politics.

    We shouldn't get caught up in the phony umbrage war (as Michael Kinsley put in on yesterday's Diane Rehm show)

    And we should ignore shakespearessister who thrives on the phony umbrage wars.

    [ Parent ]

    well, only HE comes out. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:12:47 PM EST
    choice words.

    Rather than SHE comes out.

    sheesh deconstruct that.

    [ Parent ]

    Really whether it is a woman or man (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:48:01 PM EST
    that was taken in and didn't come out, it is irresponsible imagery when we have a non-violent democratic system to decide which candidate gets to win.

    BushCult takes people into rooms from which they don't emerge.

    I'd like to think that Democrats do not also subscribe to that kind of threatening and bullying even if it is only meant to be metaphorical.

    I'm getting tired of this never-ending primary season too, but a Burr-Hamilton duel is NOT the answer for godsakes.  People are getting really wacked out

    Let the voters do their thing.

    Let the supers read the voters' tea leaves and let's stick to our non-violent process of selecting leadership.

    [ Parent ]

    Burr-Hamilton, huh? (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:01:37 PM EST
    Well, Hillary says she had some lessons.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:16:33 PM EST
    The He is Obama. just like 'him' often refers to Jesus.

    [ Parent ]
    "Just the words"? (4.83 / 6) (#95)
    by eleanora on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:14:39 PM EST
    Words matter. A prominent media figure calling for a male superdelegate to take a female candidate into a room and "only he comes out" is encouraging and normalizing the idea that violence against a woman by a man is an acceptable political tactic.

    Violence against women is a serious problem in this country and around the world.  My anger at this comment is not phony.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by angie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:50:14 PM EST
    if KO had not been displaying such blatant hatred and sexism toward Hillary all this time (remember the comparison to David Duke, for crying out loud?) I might have been able to give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not realize how inappropriate his comment was, but at this point I simply can believe the absolute worst of him.  

    [ Parent ]
    I'm a man (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:44:48 PM EST
    and that infuriates me to no end.  ANY violence to ANY other human, especially male on female violence, is uncivilized and unacceptable.  For KO to even suggest this makes me sick to the core of my being.

    Man we are devolving at light speed with guys like this having a tv show.  

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (4.83 / 6) (#102)
    by Just another person on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:18:30 PM EST
    Maybe I over-reacted. But when I heard that, I physically cringed. It provided the image of a big man taking his girlfriend in the back to teach her a lesson for being a smartass.

    KO probably didn't even think of it that way. It was more likely a hyperbole for him. But really, when you're speaking as a public figure, you need to be careful of your language and the images it brings up. Like racism - a lot of the times we don't mean to be racist, but the words come out and they trigger negative reactions. We decry such words. Why  don't we do that when the language is such that it makes a woman feel demeaned or threatened?

    [ Parent ]

    Check out his facial expression as he says it (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:18:17 PM EST
    That shows it was not a benign thought.  It's a wish and just fantasy, but from a 'news' man it was incredibly ugly, but that's what he's become.  Fineman's wanting to take her out as fast as possible (expressed on a few shows) was just as distressing.  The woman is virtually tied with Obama when one counts the humans who went to vote for her -- there's a delegate count and a popular vote count and both are worth considering and balancing.

      But this display by them was sick and there's no way around that.  They wouldn't have done that if this close race happened between two men.  I think they feel a woman should not think she's entitled to a position "over" us all.

    [ Parent ]

    i agree (4.33 / 3) (#107)
    by proudliberaldem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:24:10 PM EST
    i cringed too. i'm willing to believe that keith didn't think through the implications of what he was saying. but that's the problem.

    [ Parent ]
    Keith Would Definitely Think Through The (none / 0) (#155)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:48:26 PM EST
    implications of calling Obama boy in any context now wouldn't he.

    [ Parent ]
    Fineman took it in his stride. (none / 0) (#109)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:27:35 PM EST
    Howard: "why didn't I think of that apt scenario, Keith my man, that's how she should have been disposed of originally!  Go into her cell and place a revolver on the side table and tell her to take one for the team to preserve her honour."

    Keith: "haw haw haw."

    Howard: "just like Rohm."

    Keith: "Like the emperors indeed."

    howard: "No, like Ernst Rohm on the night of the long knives."

    Keith: "who?"

    [ Parent ]

    Fineman said the same thing on Charlie Rose (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:18:48 PM EST
    It was very disgusting!!


    [ Parent ]
    I'd have loved to see what (none / 0) (#104)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:22:07 PM EST
    Finemans expression was as he said

    "YES, exactly."

    I'd have looked on slackjawed, flicked my eyes left and made a grimacing expression.

    [ Parent ]

    That comment was disgusting. (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by ghost2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:37:54 PM EST
    It really induces vomit in me.  MSNBC couldn't sink any lower.  

    Keith, you are vile and a piece of s--t.  


    [ Parent ]

    The desire to murder Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Foxx on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:54:17 PM EST
    is expressed quite frequently.

    The other day I was in the check out line at an upscale grocery store. Two very large white men were talking very loudly about how they wanted to put her 6 feet under, lay her out.

    When I objected to the murderous comments, one patted me on the shoulder (I'm a slight older white woman) and said he just wanted to put her somewhere for 6 months where he didn't have to listen to her. I said "Well maybe we can find a place to put you for 6 months so you don't have to listen to her." He muttered and walked away, but what if we had been in a less public place?  

    [ Parent ]

    Hey! I like that (none / 0) (#200)
    by splashy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:46:47 AM EST
    Just like the guys that can't handle seeing a little skin on women should be the ones that have to go somewhere else, not the women.

    [ Parent ]
    KO Overcompensating (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:42:15 PM EST
    for the fact that he could not figuratively do it to Clinton when she was on his show.  So now he wants someone else to do it.  Hasn't he been listening to Hillary talk about her childhood?  How she used to come home crying because someone did something to her?  And her mother told her to "hit back" and she never cried since.  She played with a lot of boys and they took her into their group because she was not a sissy?

    Her lessons in being tough intellectually, psychologically and emotionally began in her childhood which obviously stayed with her.  What makes KO think that a Keith Olberman can rattle or cause her to misspeak?  She knew whom she was talking to.  This is the quality that voters see in her and all those media personalities trying to gang up on her only help to make this quality shine even more.

    [ Parent ]

    Olberman should pray (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:48:34 PM EST
    that none of his listeners make the mistake of attempting this literally.  All hell will break lose in that event.

    [ Parent ]
    Reminds me, (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:57:49 PM EST
    sorta, of this:  "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"  Heaven forbid some nut decides to act.  It is a tad like yelling 'fire' in the movie theatre, given current attempts to inflame prejudices.

    [ Parent ]
    That would be Henry II speaking of (4.50 / 2) (#135)
    by Mark Woods on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:01:15 PM EST
    Thomas a Beckett, who became a Saint after he was murdered by a stupid knight seeking to please the grouchy king.

    Words do lead to violence, that's why hate crimes forbid 'hate speech', isn't it?

    KO is a women-hating schmuck, that's all.  What a loser.

    [ Parent ]

    What Supreme Court Justice said.... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by kc on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:32:22 PM EST
    'your freedom of speech ends where my nose begins'
    --or words to that effect.

    I think that KO is right at the nose tip.

    [ Parent ]

    He does have his issues with women (none / 0) (#139)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:10:38 PM EST
    off camera, too, says one.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure (5.00 / 7) (#73)
    by Nadai on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:03:06 PM EST
    he doesn't mean it literally.  But his words rely on the cultural backdrop where uppity women  are literally hurt or killed for not knuckling under, or even for not knuckling under fast enough.  The metaphor only works because sometimes the threat is real.  He's trading off that real threat to make his faux threat comprehensible, which is despicable.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe not, but.. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by kc on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:22:40 PM EST
    it would be nice if the Secret Service scared the crap out of him.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree - this is being exaggerated (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by lastamendment on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:16:57 PM EST
    This is being blown way out of proportion. Olbermann's comment was off-color but by no means was it an incitement to murder. For that, you should refer to Rush Limbaugh's calls for riots in Denver.

    Politics is strewn with references to fighting and metaphors of physical violence - as metaphors, not as wishes or dreams like Limbaugh's.

    Here's one example:
    Hillary Clinton Pummels Obama Again on "Bitter" Comment

    Specifically, that page has this line: "Speaking in Scranton, Clinton again unloads on Obama and calls for an explanation."

    That's one instance of a reference to Clinton physically beating Obama, and one of her "unloading" (a gun?) on him.

    There are bigger fish to fry with our nation than Olbermann's gaffe, as far as I am concerned.

    Olbermann's comment was of a completely different order from Limbaugh's - it was stupid but not literally a call for murder.  

    [ Parent ]

    Overstatement (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:33:11 PM EST
    Keith just put his foot in his mouth.

    But considering the size of his mouth (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:34:36 PM EST
    He should be able to fit another 3 or 4 feet in there.

    [ Parent ]
    Give him time... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:49:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The sad part. . . (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:33:13 PM EST
    is that it's now clear that the end of the Republican Media Era (or at least the waning of that era) is not going to be followed by any kind of media sanity.

    pithy (none / 0) (#94)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:13:38 PM EST
    and comment of he day.

    [ Parent ]
    All of the above (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Grey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:34:34 PM EST
    Rachel Sklar, of HuffPost's Eat The Press, is taking Olbermann to task for this.  It was both sexist and violent, in her view.

    I think the expression he used is rather common in politics, but in the context of the coverage Clinton gets, it was, at least, a very unfortunate thing to say.  Flipped on its head, I would not hesitate to call it racist; in that same vein, I think it was sexist to be sure; whether Keith meant to actually suggest violence - there, I pause.

    if chosen words matter, (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by kimsaw on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:44:15 PM EST
    then Keith is a sexist clod. It doesn't matter if those phrases are common or not. If Imus got fire for calling nasty names, seems like promoting violence against Clinton should send NBC packing a pink slip for this fauxcaster. Yucking it up with other losers in a pool hall is one thing, but saying it on national tv is entirely another. Imus sure found that out, but just because it's Clinton and not a basketball team doesn't make it okay. Olbermann needs to be gone, just like his sexist playmate Shuster. These guys are disgusting. Clinton nutcrackers and cackling pens are okay, but wonder what happens if anybody shows up with an Obama nutbuster or an Obama bong. I guess that would be appallingly racist. Right?

    [ Parent ]
    or for that matter violence period. (none / 0) (#125)
    by kimsaw on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:48:05 PM EST
    Way to solve political problems- don't care if they are only words. Kids get kicked out of school for pulling punches.

    [ Parent ]
    The link, again (none / 0) (#12)
    by Grey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:36:25 PM EST
    Keith Olbermann's Idea For Beating Hillary: Literally Beating Hillary, by Rachel Sklar .


    [ Parent ]
    The apology at the end of that piece (5.00 / 6) (#63)
    by ghost2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:59:32 PM EST
    came from a spokeperson, not himself.  

    You know, episodes like this not only prove the vile misogeny rampant in the meida, but make you realize that the most protected species in the society is mediocre and lousy white male.  They all have good jobs, despite lack of any talent, and the media is full of these so-called creative class.  

    Excuse me while I go and barf.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, (none / 0) (#19)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:38:10 PM EST
    That's a phony issue.

    It gives her a chance to appear to be remotely journalistic.

    She's really a PR gal operating in that gray territory called "analysis" these days.

    [ Parent ]

    What (none / 0) (#26)
    by Grey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:41:08 PM EST
    is the phony issue?


    [ Parent ]
    What I mean (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:47:17 PM EST
    is that each of these personalities tries to find something they can pretend to be outraged about that supports the opposite candidate.

    She's not really principled, in other words.  If she were principled, she'd have spoken out about the absolutely smearing of Hillary all along.

    This is just pandering.

    [ Parent ]

    Got it (none / 0) (#43)
    by Grey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:49:26 PM EST
    Though she has often written and spoken about the horrible treatment Clinton gets.

    In any case, I was merely adding to the list of links Jeralyn provided.

    [ Parent ]

    And for speaking up on Clinton's behalf (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:29:33 PM EST
    ...Sklar has suffered a lot of abuse on that site.  It surprised her that it could be as hostile and truly vile as it has been, and it makes me think of what Obama unleashes via his passive aggressive behavior toward Clinton, encouraging his audiences to hate her as he does, for not treating him right (and he's been knowingly inaccurate on a couple of key occasions).  This is why I won't vote for him.

    [ Parent ]
    Mea Culpa (none / 0) (#189)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:11:41 PM EST
    I had the wrong Rachael in mind when I wrote that.  

    [ Parent ]
    She is one of the few at Huffpo who has. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:17:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The comments to Sklar's article (none / 0) (#154)
    by Foxx on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:45:43 PM EST
    were as murderous as Olberman. I hadn't been there in quite some time.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:34:48 PM EST
    I think it was unfortunate, but not sexist. It can be said about a man it seems to me as easily.

    My disrespect for Olbermann is second to no one's, but this strikes me as not accurate.

    What if Keith had said... (5.00 / 9) (#18)
    by goldberry on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:38:07 PM EST
    ..."A superdelegate should grab a rope and take Obama into a room and hopefully only the superdelegate would emerge."?  

    I realize that what KO said doesn't strike you as sexist but for those of us who've been in that room, there is no doubt in our minds that that's something that happens more often to women than men.  

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly. It Would Be Equated to Lynching. (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by NOBAMA08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    Bill Clinton uses the word "fantasy" and all hell breaks loose. Can you even imagine a Clinton surrogate or Clinton partisan on their show mention wanting to do anything to Obama that would imply violence or lynching? That person would be fired in a hearbeat.

    Let's make this clear. If Keith had said something like taking her out in the boxing ring in reference to the Rocky analogy, that would be very different from dragging someone against their will into a room and making sure they never come out again. The latter conjures up for many women and men a domestic violence situation where the woman is taken into the bedroom, behind closed doors, and beaten down until she begs to do anything if he will stop.

    Keith might not have thought at that moment that what he was saying was sexist but that is because he is a sexist pig and things like that come naturally for him. Most of the men on MSNBC don't think twice when they joke about women and that is what got Shuster into trouble. It is obvious that he never learned his lesson because he is still cracking sexist jokes.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree completely (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Just another person on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:25:06 PM EST
    I don't expect everybody to react this way, or even all women to react this way. But there are people and there are women who do. And this whole election season has been about undermining their feelings just because you can point to another bunch of women who don't see a problem with it.

    If there are enough people who are uncomfortable with certain language or gestures, I don't think it's too much to ask that their sentiment be taken seriously.

    (Example - I didn't think the Hillary pen was sexist per se - just crass. But there are women who think it's demeaning. I'm not going to undermine their feeling about it because I don't see it that way.)

    [ Parent ]

    I'm female (none / 0) (#54)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:54:38 PM EST
    but I believe he would have said the same thing had the oppsition been a male that was standing in his choices way. I don't believ this isas much about sexism as it is about KO's enormous ego. KO thinks he knows what is best. Therefore Candidate B, who he does not support for whatever reason ought to bowout.

    KO is a moronic dolt. I have no intention of  being bullied into supporting Obama and I daresay Hillary can be bullied into dropping out(A arge portion of why I support her s because she is not a shrinking violet.) Sometimes it IS necessary to fight for what you believe even if that battle is an uphill one.

    [ Parent ]

    He has been sexist in the past, but... (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    ...I think in this case you are right. He is being a bully. A cowardly bully because he hasn't got the guts to say it to her face, but a bully nonetheless.  In the past it seemed to me that most of the bullies were Republicans, but now we have bullies in our midsts. Hillary stands up to them, and Obama it seems hides behind them.

    [ Parent ]
    See but if the opposition were male (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:04:49 PM EST
    to begin with, Olbermann wouldn't be calling for her to get knocked out by a superdelegate. The hatred toward her from him is inherently based in misogyny, so for him to say this IS that misogyny.  He never would have said in the first place had the opposition been male.  

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:17:20 PM EST
    bu I think we can be okay with that. :) I do agree that it was a horrendous thing to say Intimidation and bullying is NEVER right and it has no place in the democratic process. Personally, I don't see why KO is so afraid of the VOTERS deciding.

    [ Parent ]
    The intimidation and bullying on the part of (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:22:35 PM EST
    KO leveled at Hillary has ALWAYS been rooted in misogyny. This statement just adds to the evidence.    It's sexist, make no mistake.  He never would have said this in the first place if Hillary were a man. Never.

    [ Parent ]
    And note that the super who emerges is (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:21:07 PM EST
    a "he".

    [ Parent ]
    But if the situation was real, (none / 0) (#146)
    by misspeach2008 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:30:09 PM EST
    I'd put my money on Hillary's being the one to emerge from the room.  8^)

    [ Parent ]
    Honestly BTD, (5.00 / 12) (#31)
    by ghost2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:44:45 PM EST
    I could not hear that comment without being disgusted.  It's never an acceptable thing to say take a woman to a room and only you will emerge.  NEVER.  

    Keith turns my stomach on a normal day, but this was a lot worse.

    [ Parent ]

    Put it another way. (5.00 / 9) (#39)
    by ghost2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:48:44 PM EST
    KO has proven to me that he is STUPID and has no business being on air.  The most charitable thing to be said about this episode is that he WAS TOO STUPID to realize what the meaning and imagery of that sentence was.  

    This sentence is an attempt at being macho, a cowboy/tough guy imagery, if you will.  Like the godfather/the mafia taking someone into a room.  But what would happen inside the room?

    You cannot interpret that sentence in any possible way so that it comes out OK for Keith.  

    [ Parent ]

    The "he comes out" makes it sexist (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by ineedalife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:34:48 PM EST
    You might argue that it is subconcious sexism, but it is sexist nevertheless.

    Why wouldn't Pelosi, or Granholm, or Sebelius, or Feinstein, or Boxer be the lucky super delegate?

    It would have been just as easy to say only the superD comes out.

    [ Parent ]

    Or even she, the super-d (none / 0) (#156)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:50:43 PM EST
    comes out of the room alone. . . .  But then, Olbermann and Fineman would presume it was only after the girls had a good cry.

    [ Parent ]
    Clearly (none / 0) (#160)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:00:03 PM EST
    In that case using the pronoun "he" is sexist. But "he" can also mean Obama, which is how I read it, in which case there is no sexism.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#40)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:49:05 PM EST
    But would he?

    I doubt it, frankly.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton would be the one walking out. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:15:57 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oh, I thought you were referring... (none / 0) (#137)
    by kinglet on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:06:15 PM EST
    to the assumption that the superdelegate was a "he." Which is sexist. And lazy.

    [ Parent ]
    You have to see within longtime context (none / 0) (#177)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:31:56 PM EST
    Olbermann really hates her and expresses this often.  Watch his mouth as he does it.  And those crazy eyes.  

      I don't think he would have even thought to say this if it had been a male candidate who was getting an equivalent popular vote when counting the humans who actually voted.

    [ Parent ]

    Eye-opening stuff these days (5.00 / 9) (#9)
    by Jim J on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:35:11 PM EST
    I will never view the left, nor the Democratic Party, nor any self-proclaimed "liberal" the same ever again.

    I feel stupid saying so, but that's what this primary has taught me. I guess some values go deeper than party ID for me.

    Pretty eye opening for me too (5.00 / 10) (#35)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:46:55 PM EST
    I never thought the left side of he aisle would embrace bullying to the level I have seen online. It's disgusting. I always thought if the facts were there and you had intellect that you could win an argument by engaging in debate. Far too many sites are allowing childish name calling and prepubescent bullying along with divisive conjecture to remain that has no substantial basis in fact. I'd be embarassed to represent myself the way some are, even if what we do online is somewhat anonymous.

    [ Parent ]
    Burning my progressive card (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    I couldn't agree more. I have always been a "liberal". When the progressive wing took control, they became as caustic and destructive to the party as the Christian Coalition did to the Republican Party. I always thought of the liberal wing of the party as being open minded and inclusive. Even ultra liberals such as Russ Feingold has called on the progressives to cool their jets.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, we call them Neo Progressive now (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:03:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That is what (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:30:22 PM EST
    I always thought.

    A movement that embraces prejudice of any sort, be it anti-gay, anti-woman or anti-working-class, is neither liberal, nor progressive.

    That's why those blogs no longer get my clicks or my business. I think their libertarian Republican roots are showing.

    [ Parent ]

    Took me awhile (none / 0) (#183)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:50:12 PM EST
    to catch on.  But I agree with you.

    I suppose it's the same as always.  Rigid opinions lead to anger and hostility, and it really doesn't matter where the rigidity is located.

    [ Parent ]

    I lost some respect from Feingold (none / 0) (#85)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:08:23 PM EST
    when he made the comment he did about Edwards. It was rude and disrespectful. I could have and would have been happy to diagree with him on who was best suited to be President(I don't expect to always agree with everyone). That said, to disrespect what Edwards had done since leaving office(substantial work in NOLA, chartered a pilot education program, stomping with unions, researching efforts to eradicate poverty, etc, etc) was unacceptable and elitist. I left his PA as a result of it. I'll be more than happy to lend my efforts to some of his causes because I agree with them but he won't get a cent of my money to spend on candidates, not as long as he seems to be clueless about the fact that activism outside of public office is as important as activism while in public office(maybe moreso and the essence of democracy. I sent him an excoriating letter telling him so too.

    [ Parent ]
    Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:31:08 PM EST
    has behaved impeccably.

    The party not so much.

    [ Parent ]

    I greatly admire (none / 0) (#126)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:49:12 PM EST
    most of what Edwards has done since leaving office. Even if you disagreed with his positions while he was in office to dismiss his efforts outside of office and call his efforts "ridiculous" was rude. Particularly when you would have to be blind, deaf and dumb to fail to recognize that Edwards was the first to discuss and put out plans for health care, the environment, and the economy which was far from a ridiculous effort in my opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    The left is a tough place (none / 0) (#99)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:17:03 PM EST
    It's not about being nice.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't expect nice (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by cawaltz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:34:10 PM EST
    I don't necessarily expect the sites I visit to be "nice". I do expect them to be an atmosphere where opinions are substantiated by real facts as opposed to made up ones. I do expect them to provide an environment where there is an expected code of respect and different opinions can be offered up without a barage of insults. I do expect the majority of its members to be intelligent and creative enough to not stoop to using four letter words and name calling to make their argument. Any three year old can call someone a "doo doo head" or fill in your favorite expletive, adults engage in discussion and unafraid of using facts to explain why they have a particular opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    Some values do go deeper than party (5.00 / 8) (#87)
    by Practically Lactating on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:08:44 PM EST
    ID, and sometimes people vote their values over their economic interests! (Gasp)

    I have been a loyal Democrat since I could vote, and it's not because I have an affinity for donkeys, but because of my values. The second it becomes obvious that this party is no longer consistent with those values the second I am no longer a Democrat. These so-called leaders are really trying my patience.

    [ Parent ]

    You said it for me. (none / 0) (#179)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:38:50 PM EST
    And I've lived a long time.  I've not been very pollyannish, but what I've seen has been pretty overwhelming.

      There are assumptions and expectations.

      When I was Finance Liaison for the president of our corporation, a young guy was hired, walked over to my desk, and said, "You're a girl, here, type these."

      When I was a database programmer on a several billion$ project for Bechtel/PGE here, building a network of databases that would hold rebuttals to 17,000 pages of a report from the utility group, a visiting consultant came over to my desk while I was programming and said "You must be a secretary?  I need this typed."

      When expectations of servicing-roles are dashed, some of these guys don't know how to handle it.  Younger guys, I found, enjoyed talking shop with a computer gal though.  They were also more secure.  Olbermann is looking more like a stuffed O'Reilly by the day and acts it.

    [ Parent ]

    Imagine, imagine (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:35:34 PM EST
    If anyone suggested the same treatment for Obama!!! Close your eyes and think.  This is the double standard that poisons this election.  This is the double standard that is based on ignorance.  

    that's exactly (5.00 / 9) (#29)
    by ccpup on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:42:49 PM EST
    the question I was going to pose.  How different would the reaction had been if Olbermann had suggested a SD take Obama into a room to "convince" him to drop out and only one emerged.  The media would be in an uproar, the blogs would be on fire and Olbermann, without a moment's hesitation, would be publicly apologizing at the top of the hour before heading off for his humiliating suspension.

    But, as it was with regards to Hillary, it'll probably make a slight ripple with the media and then be excused away with "well, no one really likes her, so it's okay 'cause Keith was just being Keith".

    Problem is, the American people -- and those voters who have yet to cast a ballot -- heard this, saw the non-reaction and have finally admitted to themselves that there IS a very unfair double-standard being applied to Barack and Hillary.  

    And if you're an American worker who has ever suffered because of a double-standard which punished you despite the fact you were a good, hard worker and worked your heart out, something like this is just gonna piss you off big time.  You might even stop believing the media talking heads, turn them off and vote with your heart and not because of the narrative they're spinning.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow. (5.00 / 9) (#11)
    by Faust on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:35:50 PM EST
    He's going to have to make a special comment on himself.

    Problem is (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:37:07 PM EST
    I go in that room with Hillary (if not in person very much in spirit) and if she doesn't come back out, neither do I.

    Olbermann is one of Obama's biggest GE liabilities.

    These white guys (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:37:47 PM EST
    think they are cool and now they can act like Sopranos or street Gangstas.  That they are part of the real men's club and they will tell us uppity women what to do with our selves.  

    lol* (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:39:31 PM EST
    They really are crowing, aren't they?

    It's downright funny to me.

    I like the fact that the sexism is out on the table.  What a relief not to try to point out subtleties!  :)

    [ Parent ]

    Obviously, (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:37:52 PM EST
    he should be fired before Shuster.

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:47:31 PM EST
    Shouldn't the Secret Service be paying him a call - they investigate every threat to her - real or imagined?

    </only half snark>

    [ Parent ]

    Back in the 90s I had a (none / 0) (#84)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:08:05 PM EST
    student in a night class who had the following excuse for missing a quiz (this may have been related by a friend of hers). She thought it would be fun to call up the White House and threaten to kill Clinton. She was busy talking to federal agents during the quiz.
    This could have been an imaginative excuse; however, she was dim enough and flighty enough it could have been true.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not sure about that (none / 0) (#42)
    by Iphie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:49:23 PM EST
    Especially after Schuster's gift to Tucker of the Hillary pen. It's a toss-up.

    [ Parent ]
    Disgusting (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Danielle on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:39:31 PM EST
    Comments like this make me disgusted and offended.  It is okay to make sexist comments in this election.  Which is more reason, why I will only vote for Hillary.  Never ever will I vote for Obama.  I am tired of the misogyny in this race.

    Campaign? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by janarchy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    Perhaps a letter/calling campaign to MSNBC regarding this would be a good idea? It worked for Tweety, it worked for Shuster. Sadly MMFA doesn't want to touch Olbermann with a 10 foot pole (unlike the other two clowns) but there seems to be enough ire and more of the same sexist tripe from MSNBC in general to warrant more complaints.

    As someone else said here, can you imagine the uproar if anyone suggested someone do the same to Obama?

    It's Plan B (5.00 / 10) (#25)
    by standingup on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:40:31 PM EST
    Obama hasn't been able to knock Hillary out of the race so we'll send in one of the big boys to take care of the job.  

    It's sexist, demeaning and just stupid.  But I don't expect we will hear anything out of the Dem leadership or Obama camp decrying more of the same from Olbermann.  They literally believe it is still okay and sometimes necessary to put a woman in her place.

    Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:49:19 PM EST
    has all the X's on this.

    He can't send in the Big Boys.

    Why?

    Because she's kept focused on voters.  

    Now, her campaign sure has been pretty.  But she never lost sight of our true process.

    Let em' spin.

    She's winning over real voters.  And that is WHAT COUNTS!

    [ Parent ]

    She is winning -- Gallup sees post-PA bounce (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    in the tracking poll today!

    "The latest results, based on Gallup Poll Daily tracking from April 22-24, include two days of interviews conducted entirely after Tuesday's Pennsylvania Democratic primary. Support for Clinton is significantly higher in these post-primary interviews than it was just prior to her Pennsylvania victory, clearly suggesting that Clinton's win there is the catalyst for her increased national support."

    Obama had a 10-point lead, now gone -- a one-point lead so far within the MOE that it's a tie . . . and trending down for him.  And in the head to heads, he doesn't beat McCain -- but Clinton can, yes she can, and will, yes she will. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by ghost2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:42:44 PM EST
    Media should do here what media preaches.  

    Keith is a public figure.  He should explain what he meant.  This comment is vile.  Will you EVER let your children ever making a comment like this about another person, let alone, a man aboout a woman?  

    The worst thing about media's treatment of Hillary Clinton has been the manner they have done it.  It has been vile, misygenust, disgusting, and has insulted all of us women each and every day.  

    Shame, Shame on MSNBC!! Could they sink any lower.

    You're Absolutely Right (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by flashman on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:01:54 PM EST
    The phrase is code for murder, no question about it.  It gives us more insight to the thinking at MSNBC

    Chelsea's a whore!

    The solution to Clinton is murder

    Hillary is nothing without Bill's indiscretion.

    HAVE THEY NO SHAME!

    [ Parent ]

    Well, I don't see it as 'murder' (none / 0) (#182)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:49:30 PM EST
    But it's obviously some form of "roughing up" so she is, in effect, unable to come out of the room.  She's "done."

    It's incredibly ugly as it is, and I cannot imagine another network allowing such expression of malice toward someone who's a candidate running a close race that merely challenges the other party who also cannot get the required number of pledged delegates and worries about superdelegates' decision.

    They can't wait to have a fair win/lose but must expedite the disappearance of the threatening challenger.  She doesn't come out of that room.  Amazing in a horrible way that this was said by a news man.

    [ Parent ]

    I Can't Pretend (none / 0) (#201)
    by flashman on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:19:29 PM EST
    to know what he was thinking when he made the comment. I don't read minds.  I'm just saying, his statement is a synonym for murder, no matter how he meant it.

    [ Parent ]
    I heard him say this when it was first (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by independent voter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:44:20 PM EST
    broadcast, and found it totally distasteful then as well. He was out of line, and there is no way to spin it. Doesn't seem sexist to me, he wants Clinton out of the race, tried for snark and missed badly.

    A Thoughtful, Albeit Angry, Post from Anglachel (5.00 / 10) (#32)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:45:45 PM EST
    That puts Keith's comments into a broader perspective of the history of men taking women into rooms and committing violence.  

    I do think it's impossible to separate out the increasingly common threats of violence from some men and the fact that Hillary is a woman.   As Melissa McEwan has pointed out before, you cannot separate Hillary Clinton from her womanhood and saying things like you want to punch her in the face, punch a woman in the face, comes with all of the baggage of the culture just as calling Obama "Boy" does.

    BTW, if you want to know how deeply the misogyny and CDS run, McEwan was given the Michael Moore award by Andy Sullivan for is for divisive, bitter and intemperate left-wing rhetoric for pointing out that when you say you want to commit violence against Hillary Clinton you are saying you want to commit violence against a woman.

    Ah, the unity campaign... (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:00:01 PM EST
    ...are we having fun yet?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama is a uniter (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:02:50 PM EST
    in the same way Bush is a uniter.

    He's united most of the core Democrats against him.

    [ Parent ]

    Speaking of Michael Moore (none / 0) (#122)
    by NOBAMA08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:44:53 PM EST
    the jerk accused Clinton of awful things including racism in his endorsement of Obama. When will he come out to condone the sexism? I don't expect he or any of the other "progressive" men will. They are going to pay for this. They can blame Clinton, the b*tches who support her, and the "white trash" all they want because they are the real losers. The losers who will never be able to beat Republicans. They can whine all they want.

    [ Parent ]
    KO is a traitor (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Chimster on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:49:48 PM EST
    I've liked KO an awful lot when there wasn't a primary. I used to watch him regularly because he was the voice of dissent from a media (mostly FOX) that let Bush get away with anything he wanted. (Just like my past feelings for Michael Moore).

    These guys were the voice of the Democratic party. They showed how to be fighters, and had the guts to stand up for what they believed and speak their minds. They helped speak fopr a lot of Dems that had no voice.

    Cut to present day: Olbermann and Moore have showed us that they have no interest in the Democratic party. They only have the vision to guarantee their choice for President makes it all the way to the WHite House. The problem is that they are tearing apart the same party they fought to unite.

    By attacking Hillary (and not attacking Obama), Olbermann's playing Dem against Dem. He is a traitor of the worst kind. One who has a daily audience to preach his hate to.

    He sucks.

    He lacks perspective in a general way (none / 0) (#184)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:55:08 PM EST
    I tired of KO's comments after awhile.  They predictably started out at peak level and there was no balancing of his commenting.

      He can't censor himself - every thought he has is, to him, of paramount importance, so every single word is stressed.  It became just a self-puffery (and he did seem to morph into O'Reilly in a strange display of the theory that you Are what you Hate), and before the primaries I turned the channel when he started his comments because I couldn't bear listening to them.  They tend to be never-ending.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary (5.00 / 13) (#47)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:51:12 PM EST
    is the one who would come out of that room.

    D**n right. (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:53:46 PM EST
    And Keith knows it.

    This was his dismissive way of attempting to demean her incredible tenacity and fighting spirit.

    Instead, he just looked small, petty and mean.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL, but I think it would be.... (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:56:08 PM EST
    ...more accurate to say that Hillary would come out of the room FIRST, with a smile on her face while the SD would slink out behind her looking like Richardson did the other night on Larry King.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL* (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:58:04 PM EST
    I think Keith actually knows that, too.

    [ Parent ]
    Definitely! (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:04:51 PM EST
    and dusting herself off say, "NEXT?"

    [ Parent ]
    it's true (none / 0) (#196)
    by sleepingdogs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:54:58 PM EST
    ...and I don't picture her being afraid to go into the room, either........

    [ Parent ]
    Do any of these clowns know the meaning of (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by MMW on