Olbermann Comments on Hillary Causing Stir

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hyperbole and sexism. (5.00 / 4) (#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.



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

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    "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.


    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.  

    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.  


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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?"


    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!!

    That comment was disgusting. (5.00 / 2) (#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.  


    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?  


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.  


    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.

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

    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?

    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.

    The link, again (none / 0) (#12)
    by Grey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:36:25 PM EST
    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.


    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.


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

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.  

    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
    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.

    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 / 8) (#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.  


    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.


    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.

    See but if the opposition were male (5.00 / 3) (#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.  

    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.

    The intimidation and bullying on the part of (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    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".

    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^)

    Honestly BTD, (5.00 / 11) (#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.


    Put it another way. (5.00 / 8) (#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.  


    The "he comes out" makes it sexist (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    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.

    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.

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

    I doubt it, frankly.


    Clinton would be the one walking out. (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by Salo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:15:57 PM EST
    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.

    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.


    Eye-opening stuff these days (5.00 / 8) (#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.

    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.

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


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    Imagine, imagine (5.00 / 5) (#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 / 8) (#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.


    Wow. (5.00 / 8) (#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!  :)


    Obviously, (5.00 / 1) (#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>


    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.

    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.

    Disgusting (5.00 / 4) (#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 / 9) (#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.


    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!


    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. :-)


    Jeralyn (5.00 / 3) (#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 / 1) (#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.



    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.


    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.

    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 / 9) (#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 / 1) (#66)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:00:01 PM EST
    ...are we having fun yet?

    Obama is a uniter (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

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

    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........

    Do any of these clowns know the meaning of (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by MMW on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:52:23 PM EST
    democracy? The VOTERS are keeping Hillary Clinton in the race.

    This statement is not sexist, as I don't think it is only applicable to females.

    It is indicative of the major problem with the media. They seem to be a collection of clowns, unfamiliar with the subjects about which they speak.

    I hope everyone on here is now aware that DEMOCRATS no longer have any credibility on democracy, voting rights, or any of those much vaunted democratic principles. Pride goes before a fall and the recognized Democratic leadership has now proven what the Republicans have been saying about Democrats all along.

    Keith Olberman, whatever he meant, should be made to state unequivocally what he meant, with PROOF. Why do we always have to determine, or tease out, the meaning of these people's words? They make a living on their words.

    Did he mean, intimidate her? Kill her? I DON'T KNOW. I don't know Keith Olberman.

    Bad...but.... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:53:05 PM EST
    Hyperbole?  Certainly.

    Sexist?  Probably a little.

    Really stupid?   Yes.

    A call for murder?  No way.

    He should make himself his WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD for this one though.

    He's done it before. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:55:45 PM EST
    He certainly deserves it this time.

    And sorry, it was incredibly sexist. You have to put it in context with his general coverage of HRC.


    Not a Call for murder but (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:42:58 PM EST
    what to listeners?  It would only take one receptive deranged mind to interpret this as a call to action.  People in the media SHOULD NEVER say anything like this about ANYBODY! Even as a joke.

    The comment clearly implies "murder" (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by nativenycer on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:54:26 PM EST
    ...with humor intended, but given his history of abusive language toward her, all humor was lost.

    Just Imagine (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by facta non verba on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:58:40 PM EST
    if someone had said the same thing about Obama. That would be all we would be hearing right now.

    His comments were offensive and he should apologize on the air. Morning Joe played the comments and could only say "wow!"

    If Joe Thought The Comment Was Out Of Line, (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:09:23 PM EST
    why should any woman find excuses for it?

    We shouldn't. (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:12:33 PM EST
    And I am so tired of men (and women) telling me when something is sexist or not. I have been suffering because of sexism all my life and I know it when I see it. It's so freaking obvious I really feel like pounding my head against the wall.

    Olbermann felt free to make that comment because HRC is a woman. MMMMMmmmmkay? He wouldn't have made it about a man because he wouldn't have gotten away with it.



    You know (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by facta non verba on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:17:43 PM EST
    I live in San Francisco and I now stay up until 4AM to watch the first hour of Morning Joe because it is worth watching. I work for myself so I can work while I wait for the program to come on. Joe Scarborough, a former Republican Congressman, is the type of person that Obama claims he can bring on board and yet the most potent face of that crossover Republican is for Hillary Clinton. What does that say?

    He calls her "my gal" "my girlfriend" "she's a fighter" "she is the unifying force in the country" and openly admits as to "being in the tank for Hillary." Amazing. And this week he has Andrea Mitchell sitting in for Mica and Andrea, no friend of the Clintons, is simply mesmerized and agrees with him. Unbelievable.


    If You Are Being Honest And Not Looking At (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:36:45 PM EST
    Hillary through a completely biased filter, it is hard not to admire her even if you don't agree with her on all the issues. Not many people could have faced what she has in this primary and still remained on their feet not to mention keep on winning.

    worst person in the world (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    I certainly hope KO puts himself at the top of the WPITW list tonight.

    This was obviously a stupid, not well thought out statement. But at the very least, he did indeed imply intimidation of a serious nature. Hopefully just verbally. But intimidation of the variety you find in a closed, locked room where only one comes out after the deed is done.

    If KO puts himself on the list, and apologizes, I will let him slide and assume he had a kool-aid overdose. If not, I would assume he is actually dangerous and is inciting his followers to do something about this horrible Clinton person who is endangering the country. Yes, I think it's that serious.

    Olbermann should be (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by oldpro on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:05:55 PM EST
    picketed or...maybe an office sit-in...or

    ...where are those pie people when you really need them?

    The Very Least It Suggests Is That A MAN (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:06:42 PM EST
    should intimidate her into submission. Have to admit when I first heard this I was really troubled by the part of her not coming out of the room. Why is she not coming out of the room? The trouble is that it leaves a whole lot to interpretation and not a responsible avenue of commentary IMO.

    Godawful (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by BethanyAnne on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:07:05 PM EST
    I'm clearly an Obama fan, but this is godawful, and there is no excuse for it.  None whatsoever.

    Thank you, Bethany (none / 0) (#185)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:01:48 PM EST
     That was pleasant to read (after spending too much time on HuffPost!, which I used to enjoy).

    Keith Better Watch It (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:07:43 PM EST
    Hillary has an awesome posse.

    And may I suggest that if Keith ever found himself alone in a dark alley with Hillary Clinton, he'd wet himself and run away.  Which, of course, is why he wants to outsource his dirty work to some unknown male Super Delegate.  I mean, Keith could've made these points himself to her when she was on his show.

    Sound Of His Voice (none / 0) (#151)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:39:20 PM EST
    Cluck...cluck...cluck. Just another one of those manly men on MSNBC.

    Beating up a woman is abuse and sexism (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Prabhata on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:08:37 PM EST
    When I first saw that video, I thought he meant to beat her up to get through to her and stop the campaign.  Men who beat up women are cowards.

    I think it is sexist (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by ajain on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:10:13 PM EST
    Take her to a closet and only "he" comes out! He may not have meant it to be sexist, but it doesnt matter if this was on purpose. If I say something racist even though I didnt mean to does it excuse me from saying racist things.

    This some pretty ridiculous commentary and it is just another example of his violent hatred towards Hillary Clinton.

    On its own, no, but as part of a pattern, yes (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by davnee on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:11:17 PM EST
    I agree that it was in extraordinarily bad taste to imply violence against a woman.  It's worse to say something like this about a woman than a man given the realities of the society we live in.  But do I think KO was being intentionally sexist?  No.  He's relishing in the old school language of hard-nosed politics to make his point.  And it's an old school that hasn't yet gotten its PC act together yet.  But that being said, I'm not about to let KO off the hook.  Because what I do think is at work in these comments and is part of the larger point he's been making all along is that she's wrong to keep fighting, that she needs to step aside for the good of the man in the race.  This fits in the larger pattern of all KO's comments that deride and devalue Clinton for having the audacity to contend with the boyz for the ultimate crown.  She's the castrating Lady MacBeth of his nightmares.  His anti-Clinton bombast goes beyond any reasonable measure of policy difference, or dislike for past deeds.  It's visceral and frightening.  As a woman it scares me, because it is wrapped in so much denial.  

    That's what is terrifying about the sexism from the Left.  The denial.  All this rage and dismissal is bubbling up and spewing forth from hidden depths.  Sexism from the Right is not so hidden, nor frankly is it so angry, perhaps because it is not so deeply sublimated.  You can prepare for it and you can see it coming and it doesn't sting near so much when it connects.  This stings.  Badly.  Most of all because everyone thinks they are too evolved to be guilty.

    Olberman (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:11:43 PM EST
    has become an embarasing joke.
    of course he meant a death wish.  what else is that supposed to mean.
    the key is its Hillary so its ok to say this stuff.
    can you possibly imagine the hysterical "special comment" we would be treated to if anyone suggested such a think about the Precious?

    Will Maddow, Fineman and Wolf (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by leis on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:16:57 PM EST
    expect Obama to speak out about this? Will there be outrage that Obama doesn't come to her defense and speak out against this type of attack? When pigs fly.

    Context is All (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by miriam on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:23:04 PM EST
    There is no question in my mind as to what Olbermann was not-so-coyly suggesting, because he has established a pattern. He routinely degrades females and thinks it's hilarious when the pathetically unwell Britney Spears does anything at all to confirm that diagnosis.  His snickering commentary on the death of Anna Nicole Smith was appallingly crude.  He's a prime example of mysogynism and anyone who argues otherwise is either naive or complicit.

    Where is the DNC?  Why isn't it as an organization and Howard Dean as its leader calling for this blatantly threatening behavior to stop immediately.  Where is Obama?  The great communicator is not saying a word to bolster his image of hope and unity, which apparently excludes women. He continues to hide behind his wife's strong character because he has no morally persuasive strength of his own. At least his notorious pastor has the courage to say what he thinks, no matter how odious.

    But, for that matter, where are TV's women commentators, such as Andrea Mitchell, who are also not saying a word in defense of their own gender?  If women, all women, remain silent in the face of such public degradation then it will continue as usual.  Hillary Clinton, who, at the moment is representing every woman who has ever been degraded, doesn't deserve our silence.  

    The only female commentators (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:45:23 PM EST
    and pundits who keep their jobs are usually the ones that toe the party line.

    In other words, all things anti-Hillary are fine, no matter how ridiculous, misogynistic or threatening.


    So disappointed. (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:08:23 PM EST
    I can't believe it. What a fine analytical mind, gone to waste for the sake of that sweet, sweet Kool-Aid.

    Follow the money (none / 0) (#175)
    by dwmorris on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:30:11 PM EST
    The salary differential between Air America Radio and MSNBC is huge.  As long as she eloquently bashes Hillary on cue for Olbermann, she will keep raking in the big bucks.  I'm not necesarily saying she's a sellout --- just part of the whole manufactured consent thing (per Noam Chomsky).  The money may just be gravy.

    O'Donnell was upset about "periodic" ! (none / 0) (#187)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:09:14 PM EST
    I remember she and another female commentator were not having nice thoughts about Barack's take on Hillary's launching of attacks when "periodically feeling down"

    Can't imagine her take on this.


    This is what happens when (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:32:48 PM EST
    someone takes a rhetorical - or coded - shortcut to make a point when time is running out on a segment, because he or she simply cannot bear to deny the audience the benefit of his or her extreme intelligence and grasp of the issues.

    I suspect that Olbermann and the rest of the Frat Boyz no longer see any reason why they cannot talk to their audience the way they talk among themselves.  Thanks, Keith, but there's only so much of your reality people will tolerate; knowing that this is who you are off-camera makes me see your character in a whole new light and feel really sorry for the women you, um, date.

    It also makes me glad I don't have satellite or cable or DirecTV...clearly, my blood pressure is better for it.

    At a minimum (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by eric on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:41:13 PM EST
    it implies violence and/or intimidation.  Whether motivated by an appeal to force, sexism, or something else is up for debate.  But there is no question he was talking about using force.  That is just wrong.

    NBC's Problem (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by PennProgressive on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:12:35 PM EST
    Earlier BTD suggested that NBC should fire Shuster (because of the "pen" episode). I wrote at that time that these reporters and commentators behave this way not just out of their hatred towards one individual woman but because of their prejdice towards stronng women. I think CM, KO all prove  that. What can NBC (or OBC) do? Suspend them or fire them all?

    Clinton should agree!! (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by AlSmith on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:42:12 PM EST

    Yesterday someone suggested that Clinton and McCain should debate in IN to point out how Obama was hiding and to give the voters exposure to their platforms.

    I think Clinton should also agree to this proposal from Obermann.

    Steyn recently termed the Super Delegates "timeserving party hack" which is exactly what they are. If Clinton and the SD were in a room having a "frank and open" exchange of ideas she would quickly convince 'him' of what the facts really were.

    The SD would be walked through the county by county exit data and and their illusions about Obama irrational exuberance would be deflated.

    WOW! (none / 0) (#158)
    by Chimster on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:54:58 PM EST
    I haven't thought through the ramifications of doing something like a McCain Clinton debate, but wow, what a great idea! It's ingenious.

    There are things that you don't say. (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by lorelynn on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:24:22 PM EST
    I love John Edwards and I could say "he's my boy!" and no one would wonder if I meant something unwholesome or demeaning by that. However, if someone says that about Obama, we would quite rightly call that person on the word because it would have a different cultural meaning.

    Same thing with Keith's remark - the cultural context for male violence against women is domestic violence. Not sports. Not war. Not playground conflicts. It was an inappropriate conflict and feels way too creepy in the context of his ranting and raving about her.

    We should ask Olbermann what he meant (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:39:46 PM EST
    We should write calm, rationale emails -- not to him because he could delete them -- but to the MSNBC editor.

    We should say,

    Dear Editor,

    Keith's statement that "insert exact statement here" was a bit ambiguous.

    I am not sure whether Keith meant that Hillary should be murdered by this male superdelegate or just beaten badly enough for temporary or permanent paralysis.

    Would you please ask Mr. Olbermann to disambiguate the point he was making, so we can ascertain whether to picket MSNBC or picket every single cable provider that carries MSNBC.

    Hopefully you will understand this dilemma and will reply soon.

    Thank you for your time.

    A concerned Clinton supporter.

    Here is my exact letter (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:07:43 PM EST
    that I sent off to MSNBC.com.  Sorry that it's a repeat of my comment above.  You can delete the other comment.

    Dear Editor,

    One of Keith Olbermann's recent discussions with Howard Fineman included a statement about the need for a superdelegate to "take [Clinton] into a room and only he comes out."  

    Unfortunately the statement was a bit ambiguous. I am not sure whether Keith meant that Hillary should be murdered by this male superdelegate or just beaten badly enough for temporary or permanent paralysis.

    Would you please ask Mr. Olbermann to disambiguate the point he was making via tonight's show, so I can fully understand the intention of his desire for violence against the Senator from New York and legitimate candidate for President of the United States.

    Thank you for your time.


    A concerned Clinton supporter and once loyal fan of the dubious Mr. Olbermann.

    Olbermann: Clinton acting "violently" (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by CookCountyDem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:45:19 PM EST
    The irony is that it was also Olbermann on Tuesday night who said that Clinton is trying to take the nomination away from Obama "violently so."

    I wish I knew how to spread this part of the story around more widely.  Can anyone help?  

    Old habits die hard... (1.00 / 1) (#134)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:01:02 PM EST
    ...KO is a sportscaster.  Two men enter and only one leaves is a very old sport adage.  In wrestling it is called a Texas Death Cage Match.  

    I seriously doubt he was advocating any sort of violence against women.  

    then he should go back to sports (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by angie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:15:09 PM EST
    and leave the journalism to the real journalists.  w all know what the phrase means, and spin it all you want there is no excuse for it. Either he knew what he was saying and he should be fired for advocating violence, or he didn't know what he was saying, and he should be fired for being a moron.

    You are right. He wasn't advocating (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by leis on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:14:57 PM EST
    violence against women, just this one in particular. Look, you can pretty it up anyway you like but what he said is far beyond the pale of what is acceptable. When Rep Geoff Davis (R-KY) referred to Obama as "boy", WE expressed outrage, because that is what Progressives are supposed to do, speak out  at this sh*t.  

    Speaking out against any and ALL forms of racism and sexism used to be a hallmark of this party.  WTF happened?

    So can we forget about what candidate you support and just speak up for what is right.  It does not weaken your candidate one iota to demand fair treatment for the other.


    So now... (none / 0) (#194)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:31:01 PM EST
    who's my candidate?  You wouldn't be making assumptions about something you have no idea about now would you?  

    Oh, and by the way, I certainly wasn't trying "pretty it up" and I certainly didn't imply that it wasn't a stupid thing to say.



    I don't know who you support and it shouldn't (none / 0) (#195)
    by leis on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:59:29 PM EST
    really matter. Either you missed the point of what I said or you disagree.  Fair enough.  But, it is a progressive value to speak out against all forms of discrimination.  Even speaking up in defense of people we don't care for.

    If you choose not to, you are not a progressive.

      And explaining behavior like that is most certainly prettying it up. We will disagree on that point.


    " Even speaking up in defense of people we... (none / 0) (#198)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:57:12 AM EST
    don't care for."

    Like KO perhaps?  

    I must be nice to be so perfect, so pious that you can sit in judgement of other's and their progressive credentials.  


    Not hard enough....... (4.20 / 5) (#191)
    by Boia on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:32:30 PM EST
    I seriously doubt he was advocating any sort of violence against women.  

    Of course, he wasn't!  He's just an ex-sportscaster drawing on his stock of macho metaphors to more vividly make his point.  No harm, no foul, right?

    Everybody knows he didn't mean anything bad by his remarks--it's what those good old boys at NBC do: Shuster calls Senator Clinton a pimp, and that's just rap-music chatter.  Carlson crosses his legs when he sees Clinton, and that's just locker-room joshing.  Matthews (or was it Fineman, or was it Scarborough, or was it Barnacle) compares Clinton to everybody's shrill, grasping, intolerant first wife, and that's just pundit shorthand for, well, whatever.  Nothing bad.  Boys will be boys.

    It must be terrific to live where you live.  Please give my regards to Dorothy, the Tin Man and the Wizard.  (I don't think it would be a good idea for you to bang your shoes together to try to return to the real world, because if you ran into a woman and she listened to you for more than 30 seconds, you might have to cross your legs.)


    This kind of crap... (none / 0) (#193)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:23:08 PM EST
    ...makes you just as bad as KO.

    Would it be sexism if (none / 0) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:34:54 PM EST
    both candidates were male and KO said and only the SD comes out?

    Hyperbole, possibly sexism.

    Accusing KO of advocating murder is jumping the shark.

    Of course it wouldn't be sexist (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Iphie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:46:21 PM EST
    if all players in your scenario are male.

    Even then (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by ghost2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:51:38 PM EST
    What would HAPPEN inside the room? Intimidation? How? Beatings? Physical violence? Really, what would happen inside the room?  What an utterly disgusting thing to say.

    You cannot interpret this in any way that comes out OK for Keith.  The only thing you can say is that as usual, he thought he was being clever, but came out with a completely STUPID sentence, without thinking through what it meant.


    Oh, I agree. (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Iphie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:56:51 PM EST
    There is no possible good way to spin this for KO. I think he said it without thinking, but I also think it betrays what he really meant -- when logic, debate and the democratic process won't help you, by all means, resort to violence.

    I think that is why it is called hyperbole (none / 0) (#115)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:33:24 PM EST
    My experience with some men in negotiations is this sort of commentary is par for the course.

    It may be par for the course. (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by rooge04 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:42:56 PM EST
    Simply because misogyny is alive and well.

    misogyny when my clients (none / 0) (#147)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:32:15 PM EST
    were male negotiating a settlement agreement through me with another male?

    I thing I like about Hillary, she is tough as nails.  


    Well... (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Nadai on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:56:06 PM EST
    without knowing exactly what your clients say, it's hard to be sure, but a good deal of male-to-male posturing is misogynist.  There's a strong association of physical strength with Real Manliness in this culture (and most, if not all, others).  A lot of these jockeying-for-status insults depend on the assumption that the physically weaker party is not a Real Man - that's he's been tainted with femininity and, therefore, a Real Man has every right to kick his girly a$$.  Misogyny isn't just about hating actual women, it's also about hating anyone who displays one of the attributes assigned to women, even when that person is actually male.

    I don't think it would have even been mentioned. (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by alexei on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:02:59 PM EST
    I really believe that if both candidates were male,none of the comments for one to drop out would be happening either.  Look at the comments that Elizabeth Dole was getting and you will see the inherent sexism.  E Dole hardly has the "divisive and polarizing nature" attributed to Clinton and she was receiving the same type of sexist treatment.

    This is definitely sexist and it really plays to the violence towards women being ok.  Do I know if KO subscribes to this - not a clue.  But, at the minimum, he perpetuates that this type of thinking is fine.  


    The "He" Is Obama (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:39:50 PM EST
    IMO. The only sexist interpertation would be if the "he" were a SD. It would be mildly sexist in that there are 'she' SDs, but I think that the male gender pronoun referred to Obama, mainly because of Olbermans particular emphasis on the word "he".

    Obama's no superdelegate (none / 0) (#180)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:41:56 PM EST
    Olbermann thinks anyone with real power has to be male, so he said "he" ...

    OK (none / 0) (#197)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:49:12 PM EST
    That seems to be the common interpertation of what he said. I know Obama is not a SD, but thanks for the reminder. From hearing the clip, "he" could easily mean Obama. It has to do with the emphasis Olberman used.

    Sorry that you can only see it one way, but obviously you are not alone.


    Yes (none / 0) (#48)
    by CCinNC on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:51:25 PM EST
    a figure of speech (common where I grew up, applying to men, NOT ABOUT a man being violent toward a woman).  But it isn't sexist at all, and he isn't calling for her death.

    Please stay on topic (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    It's Olbermann comments about Hillary.

    Clyburn's out attacking Bill Clinotn as Bizzarre (none / 0) (#68)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    got the Monica stuff in, blacks are pissed off .......say do anything in as well, lordy Clyburn has no shame,

    ..................this is back firing they are calling Clyburn the word was not true.......and tied it to Hillary resurgence and the obvious PA narrative Obama cant win in Nov theme
    And this as the optical slander it is

    backfire but its getting coverage

    we should all send Obama campaign and our Newspaper editorial a thank you note for this continued Obama campaign sleaze personal and Party negativity while contrasting it with the incredible empowerment of Hillary positive campaign and camping messages and pride for Party and Country of her candidacy.

    Clyburn like Wright appears stuck in the politics and paranoia of the past with its dependency of groups who identify as victims who are helpless and hopeless

    Jeralyn put it into perspective for Indy-me (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:05:50 PM EST
    I changed my reg in protest of the Dems' failure to stand up for African American voters in Ohio (and elsewhere, eg, Florida) in '04. I stayed Indy but supported Dems in '06 to retake Congress.

    I haven't, however, participated in the Dem process to select a presidential ticket and will vote based on conscience.

    Jeralyn said that Dems should choose their ticket, and that cleared away a lot of the fog for me. I'll can support the candidate I see as best suited for the job, period.

    I profoundly disagree with so many of the tactics that have muddied, gamed and distorted the process so far, eg, "Dems for a Day", or heavily pressuring any group to fork over their votes to "higher ups" to ante up in deals, [:: groan ::] astro-trolling, and so forth.

    None of the above is illegal, but combined they're what's stifling a rational, sensible process of choosing leadership. It shouldn't cost billions. People shouldn't have to count based on what they can pay. They shouldn't be roped into a ridiculous, poisonous campaign season ballooned to YEARS.

    And no, despite the hype, Obama has done nothing to resolve this, only exacerbated the process with his shifting and hinky primo-divo antics. (Sen Clinton merely held that she can play the game AS IS and win at what's already in place.)

    (But the bottom line is, Jeralyn was right. Dems and Dem voters should choose their nominees. Belated props for blowing away a lot of the fog on this.)

    FWIW, I'll write in a choice if I don't like how this plays out and not loose a wink of sleep for doing so, since I'm not a Dem.

    You're not a Democrat so you don't care? (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by miriam on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:29:16 PM EST
    Do you live in this country?  Pay taxes?  Obey its laws and honor its Constitution?  And you don't care?  Forgive me, but I cannot understand such an attitude.  

    Since '04, I'm not a Dem - how is that not CARING? (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:56:27 PM EST
    I changed my reg because I DO CARE about constitutional government, human rights and FRANCHISE.

    Your sense of outrage in this context is ridiculous.

    I have a right to register as I choose, and to vote as I choose, and to expect transparency in the process.

    I value my franchise, and that of others, above the internecine squabbling within a political party.


    You wrote: (none / 0) (#152)
    by miriam on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:40:00 PM EST
    "FWIW, I'll write in a choice if I don't like how this plays out and not loose a wink of sleep for doing so, since I'm not a Dem."

    I'm not at all outraged, simply bemused.  Your original comment implies that this primary nomination will not cause you to lose any sleep since you're not a Dem.  Yet many of us are losing plenty of sleep about which candidate is nominated precisely because we care passionately as to whether that nominee can beat McCain.  Who said anything about how you're registered?


    Who said anything about how you're registered? (none / 0) (#162)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:14:38 PM EST
    I did.

    And I suggest you re-read my post, since my reasoning is explicit.


    I watched that on a YouTube and was rather shocked (none / 0) (#110)
    by scorbs on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:28:13 PM EST
    What struck me even more was the lack of outrage by viewers.  I have no idea what he meant by that.  It seems to me that it refes to some mafia culture, and to me that suggests a "hit," or murder.

    I immediately blasted off two to three protest letters to MSBNC -- once again, no doubt ignored because I'm so used to complaining about their programs.  I also complained about David Shuster's cackling Hillary pen, and his error during a segment of Hardball yesterday in which I think I heard him claim that Obama "voted against the war."  I was in another room at the time, but I'm pretty sure Shuster made that claim, and like Anderson Cooper who has also used that language, I wrote an attempt at correcting the record.  Obama never voted for or against anything.  He was not a member of the U.S.Senate.  He gave a speech, in 2002, supposedly resisting the war (and so did Hillary by the way, in which she argued against preemptive war and for more inspections but the media chooses to forget that and twist her words).  Both Anderson Cooper and Shuster are lying.  Obama never `voted against the war' because he had no pending legislation, being a member of the state senate in Illinois, which by the way, apparently only meets 55 days out of a year.  When he got to the Senate, he voted "for" the war.  

    I was surprised that some blogwriters seemed to forgive or excuse Olbermann words; but it fit a pattern, and does sound mafiosolike and thuggish to me.

    KO loses me here. (none / 0) (#131)
    by mattt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:57:42 PM EST
    He owes an apology for te violent reference.  Though I don't see the alleged sexism....the references to taking one for the team and Ernst Rohm show he wasn't thinking about a domestic scenario.

    Like any woman... (none / 0) (#133)
    by AlladinsLamp on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:00:04 PM EST
    all Hillary needs is a good, um..."man."

    Please... (none / 0) (#144)
    by kc on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:20:47 PM EST
    Never give these people any ratings. Do not have them or CNN on, please.

    Honestly, I have my tv (muted) on FOX just to hurt them because they are always jealous of FOX's ratings.  Check out --tvnewser.com

    sorry, dont know how to do links here.

    Do you actually believe this? (none / 0) (#161)
    by masanf01 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:02:44 PM EST
    "BushCult takes people into rooms from which they don't emerge"

    Are you serious?  Does anyone on this site actually believe this crap. If so, I really feel sorry for you.
    And given the behavior of Obama's supporters, particularly the laughably ridiculous fainting spells, reminiscent of a 1964 Beatles concert, it would probably be wise to throw the term cult around a little less lightly.

    exactly (none / 0) (#176)
    by AlSmith on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:31:04 PM EST

    If nothing else (and there are other advantages),the continuation of this primary is having the scales fall from peoples' eyes about what sort of argumentation is acceptable in political discourse and what sort of rhetorical dishonesty is used by people you agree with.

    To believe some blogs Bush was supposed to have canceled the elections and be herding democrats into detention camps by now. Not to mention all of the 'false flag' operations that were supposed to be imminent now for years.  

    Is it ok to loudly assert that people who dont vote the way you want them to are racists the way Adam Nougorny does in the Times?

    Is it ok to silence view points that you disagree with by throwing pies at them?

    Frankly Olbermann has been a stupid ass for a long time, its just that people are noticing now.

    If Hillary does nothing else in this run but serve as a check and balance on what the press gets away with she will have done a great service to this country.


    Sexism vs Racism (none / 0) (#164)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:18:12 PM EST
    I think MSNBC made the decision early on that it was safer to attack Hilary over Obama. If they criticized Obama, the progressives would have labeled them racist. It easier with Hilary because everyone is already used to her being bashed.

    I just left a voicemail (none / 0) (#166)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:39:18 PM EST
    @ the DNC Chairman's office.  I asked Howard Dean (in my nicest but sternest tone), that he ask KO to tone down his calls for violence against Hillary Clinton.  I posed the question on the voicemail that what if that had been proposed about Obama?  That would have been interpreted as a lynching and the sky would be falling.

    I saw some of the other blogs saying that KO is calling for nothing less than her murder.  Well, if he advocating that a superdelegate, MALE, take her into a room and only HE comes out, one can infer that he advocates violence towards Hillary.

    That speaks volumes regarding his lack of manhood.

    Keith who? (none / 0) (#167)
    by atddoug on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:39:35 PM EST
    I stopped watching KO a few months ago.  He obviously has an irrational hatred of the Clintons, like everyone in cable news.  He's one of the reasons Obama is losing the white working-class and older women vote.  We don't need cable news hacks telling us how to vote, we don't appreciate the abusive, anti-female remarks and we're sick of the Obamaniacs telling us we're racist for daring to ask tough questions about Obama (not much different than 2003 when the Bush surrogates called us "unpatriotic" for daring to question him on the rush to war).

    Chris Matthews is the same. CNN isn't much better.

    Look for an anti-Obama backlash when they try pulling this crap in the general election.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#171)
    by jarober on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:11:50 PM EST
    I'll give Jeralyn credit: she holds left and right accountable for this kind of thing.  Many of the commenters in the thread would be having utter fits had a conservative said the same kind of thing - but for them, "no enemies on the left" seems to be the operative phrase.

    I wish Hillary would just ... (none / 0) (#173)
    by dwmorris on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:23:27 PM EST
    announce that she is staying in the race through the convention; and make it absolutely crystal clear that she won't reconsider in the current political environment - even if Obama somehow manages to get to 2208 delegates. She's being bullied because people like Olbermann, Brazile, Shultz, Pelosi, Axelrod, Huffington, etc. think that it will get them what they want.  If she digs in her heels, maybe they'll try making nice for a change.  There is no mechanism to compel her to withdraw, even in the unlikely event of a massive swing of superdelegates to Obama or a complete collapse of her fund raising effort.  Furthermore, the >15M votes that she has received gives her more than sufficient moral authority to make up her own mind about what's best for the party.  She's under no obligation to give any consideration to the self-serving arguments coming from the DNC and the Obama camp.

    I would like some reaction to this (none / 0) (#178)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:35:41 PM EST
    bizarre post by Greg Sargent.
    I find it very flippant. Olbermann, ever gracious, apologizes.

    Keith is good (none / 0) (#186)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:07:32 PM EST
    at wording apologies.  The enigma is that while he's good at wording apologies, he doesn't really mean them.  Remember when he apologized for Shuster?  Did he mean that?  (heck no!) Judging by his behavior all along including the other night when he was nice to Hillary to her face and nasty the minute she left, he HATES her, and not only that, he's SPINELESS ABOUT it.  Hence, the well worded but insincere apology.

    He also knows if people get too peeved at him, even the illustrious, ratings-boosting, Mr. Olbermann may be out of a job and with an even more sour reputation.

    A charlaton(sp) pure and simple.  And a transparent one at that.


    Oh, and about Greg Sargent (none / 0) (#188)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:10:18 PM EST
    Yes, he was being flippant.  I think he sees Olbermann for what he is.

    KO out of control (none / 0) (#190)
    by pluege on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:25:15 PM EST
    As much as we all liked Olbermann going after bush with a vengeance in his special comments, KO does once again demonstrate the dangers of unrestrained power. While it is true that bush is one of the vilest excuses for a human imaginable, Hillary Clinton is anything but. And yet Olbermann either can't tell the difference or just can't control the abuse of his megaphone as he babbles on inanely abusing her because he can get away with it and because he can't help himself.  Turns out Olbermann believes in nothing except his ability to slam people.

    Olberman is (none / 0) (#192)
    by gmroper on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:55:15 PM EST
    about as low as one can get and still be above the ground, but I wonder where all these naysayers were when he runs down republicans.  Could it only be that it depends on whose ox is being gored or is Olberman truly the jerk he appears to be ALL the time?

    Clinton "satire" video (none / 0) (#202)
    by bernarda on Thu May 22, 2008 at 07:22:37 AM EST
    There is a youtube video going around that depicts Clinton as the Black Knight in a Monty Python film. A better comment depicting Obama supporters would be the witch scene in "Holy Grail".