home

Rendell: Olbermann The Most Biased News Reader In The World

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:49:06 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Ed Rendell asks:

In an interview with me, the governor was again in media-critic mode. "It took Saturday Night Live to bring some fairness to this election," Rendell said, referring to the show's now famous skit lampooning the media's crush on Obama. "It's stunning. Does Keith Olbermann get checks from the Obama campaign?"

(Emnphasis supplied.) Heh.

Update (TL): Comments are open again, the troll has been deleted. It was ObamaMama who registered as 8 users today, including the offensively named one. All such registrations and comments and comment ratings by him/her have been erased. Thanks to all of you who e-mailed me about it.

< Obama Supporters Back Pelosi's Divisiveness | Bankruptcy Bar Rallies Behind Cross-Dressing Judge >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rendell: Olbermann The Most Biased News Reader In The World | 201 comments (201 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Can't Really Blame Gov. Rendell (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by Elporton on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:54:44 PM EST
    On his show the other day, Olbermann ridiculed Rendell and labeled him as Worst Person in the World.

    For praising FOX (none / 0) (#190)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:50:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    "Praising" with faint damns (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by rilkefan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:00:43 PM EST
    by saying they were equal-opportunity haters.  C'mon.

    Guess I should include a preemptive, "Look up 'kidding on the square'".

    [ Parent ]

    As a Dem in this primary (none / 0) (#248)
    by 0 politico on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:48:06 PM EST
    season, that may turn into a badge of honor.

    Perhaps KO can't take bad press.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes he dose, re Ad revenues (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:55:39 PM EST
    Absolutely....but when dose all this become election tampering by two very large corporations GE and Microsoft?  Dems need to move beyond KO, KOZ, TPM , Huff Post most Dems  would not quote Rush and their is no difference between his creditability and theirs in my view, I cringe when I see someone like Arianna out acting like she represents the Party.
    Not so (1.00 / 0) (#85)
    by 1jpb on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:36:03 PM EST
    much MS in MSNBC, other than letters.

    [ Parent ]
    KO (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:01:49 PM EST
    has become what he has always purported to despise. A bloviating pundit of the worst kind. The kind that shows no fairness whatsoever. Even when he was ripping on Rethugs...he was always unbalanced. It goes a long way toward convincing people you are right when you don't immediately attack anyone. Any conservative that's not insane would have been immediately turned off by his show before as well.

    However, as a woman I find him misogynistic (always) and generally rude toward women. Not to mention that he doesn't have anyone on that doesn't specifically agree with everything he says.

    KO is quite popular now (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:09:00 PM EST
    just see how fast the threads get filled when his name comes up.. he is the 'Bill O'Reilly version for the MSNBC" -- fair and balanced!
    It depends on how you define "popular" (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by angie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:36:59 PM EST
    Keith O'lbermann's is the highest rated show on the lowest rated network.  He wishes he had O'Reily's numbers.  When you look at it like that, O'lbermann is only the cream of the cr*p.


    [ Parent ]
    yes that is what I meant (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:41:58 PM EST
    cream of the cr*p!! and they have the show twice [8:00 PM and 10:00 PM] just to make up for the loss of viewers.. and trying to help Obama

    [ Parent ]
    KO (none / 0) (#210)
    by sas on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:24:20 PM EST
    is popular in a bad way.

    I suspect he lost half his viewers among Democrats, the Hillary supporters.

    Someone released stats here on TL a few weeks ago showing his viewership is way down.

    I hope so, he deserves it.  SOOOOOOOOOO misogynistic, but then so are alot of A list Blogger Boyz  - TPM, Kos, others.

    And don't even go over to HuffPo.  Of course there is only one woman over there who runs things....

    [ Parent ]

    You need (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:13:12 PM EST
    to leave this site NOW. Your commenter name and your words are BEYOND OFFENSIVE.

    I See You Admit (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by flashman on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:14:49 PM EST
    That the Obama campaign is a gang of thugs.  Finally!  We have proof, ladies and gentlemen!  

    I'm just kidding.  I don't really believe that, but as some of his supporters live in the slime pit, as you clearly do, it tends to appear that way.

    Now that I see how KO, (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:17:11 PM EST
    TPM, Cenk Uygar, Randi Rhodes, and others blatantly distort and lie in service of their Democratic favorite, I will also take everything they say about Republicans with a big grain of salt. They are killing their own credibility, and it will only hurt them in the end.  If they really want to be known as being as dishonest as Bill O'Reilly, I guess it is up to them.

    I love Ed Rendell. Good for him for taking these guys on.  If only more Dems has spoken up to Chris Matthews in 1999-2000, we might have had a Pres. Gore for these last 8 years.

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:24:51 PM EST
    I'm with Bob Somerby on getting Democrats to stand up and call BS! when appropriate.  

    [ Parent ]
    It's already hurt them. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:25:06 PM EST
    Many people like me have stopped watching and listening to them.

    [ Parent ]
    couldn't agree more (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:40:02 PM EST
    i can't stomach him or chris matthews anymore.  i gave up on morning joe as well, but have started watching again since joe has gained an appreciation for hillary.  he would never admit this, but i think he would actually vote for her.

    it's a very sad day when a lifelong democrat has to turn to fox news for the only fair reporting.  sad indeed.

    [ Parent ]

    It is sad (none / 0) (#145)
    by vigkat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:58:21 PM EST
    And it's also weirdly ironic.  In the past, it took me only a nano second to flip the channel as soon as I saw or heard Scarborough; now, I at least pause to see what he has to say. It's somewhat disconcerting when the one you thought was the worst (excluding Tucker of course, and why hasn't he been excluded, I would like to know), turns out to be the least offensive.

    [ Parent ]
    yes (none / 0) (#213)
    by sas on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:26:08 PM EST
    i agree.

    Fox and PBS have been the only ones watchable.

    [ Parent ]

    Do not worry about ratings (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:17:12 PM EST
    But do report that offensive user name to Jeralyn.

    How does one report? Sorry don't post much. (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by LoisInCo on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:51:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    click on the E-Mail link above right n/t (none / 0) (#199)
    by rilkefan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:02:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Gosh (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:20:00 PM EST
    I can't figure out why anyone would be turned off by Obama supporters.

    We Aren't (none / 0) (#76)
    by flashman on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:33:11 PM EST
    We are turned off by their language.

    [ Parent ]
    I know it is fun to play with trolls (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:23:02 PM EST
    and they do not really have a chance here but I demand all replies cease.

    Next reply to the troll will lead to a suspension from commenting today.

    you know, (none / 0) (#256)
    by cpinva on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:25:42 PM EST
    you kind of take all the fun out of having trolls on here! lol

    personally, i love trolls. they tend to not be the brightest bulbs in the box, and they're easy pickings.

    here's a suggestion: set up a permanent "troll" thread. move all the troll posts over there, and let the fur fly. could be great fun.

    [ Parent ]

    I left a comment (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:30:39 PM EST
    at MSNBC yesterday asking them when they became an Obama 527.
    funny, it never showed up in the comment list.

    MSNBC: Obama 527 (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:34:02 PM EST
    I liked that..

    [ Parent ]
    they had to be scrubbing pro (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:40:49 PM EST
    Hillary comments.
    it was in the comment thread about Hillarys new 3AM ad.
    although I suppose it is possible any pro Hillary people stopped reading their stuff long ago.
    another funny thing, yesterday I was on KOS and there was a poll asking if you approve of the job Howard Dean is doing. I tried to vote no and it would not let me, so I tried to vote yes and it let me.
    the replies were about 90% positive for Dean.
    big surprise there, ay?


    [ Parent ]
    Tell me how to e-mail them (none / 0) (#221)
    by hairspray on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:37:28 PM EST
    Yesterday I read a salon.com article (Mark Benjamin) that reported glowingly about Obama's Iraq war position, including that he had "voted" against it.  I mailed right back to him and JWalsh about the lying.  Got a mea culpa today. We need to call them on their distortions whenever we can.

    [ Parent ]
    I feel a Special Comment coming on. (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Iphie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:30:44 PM EST
    One with Rendell's name prominently featured.

    Getting a fight with (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:41:36 PM EST
    people who have the microphone could be a problem....for Rendell.

    [ Parent ]
    Logical fallacy (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:34:45 PM EST
    Even if I agreed with him and think he said some truthful things about the Bush administration (although I always found him overwrought and pompous), that doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything he says, nor that he speaks the truth all the time.

    I wonder what MSHBN's ratings are (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by vicsan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:37:31 PM EST
    these days? I haven't watched him since the night he did his "special comment" RANT against Hillary. I am so finished with that network. I LOVED his show when he was ranting about the repub administration, but ranting against Hillary is waaaaaaaay over the line.

    KO has never (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:39:16 PM EST
    been fair. And I actually did not like him before. I felt he went overboard even on Republicans. To the point where it made him look foolish and it was a detriment to his credibility then never mind now.

    I have observed that (5.00 / 6) (#112)
    by eric on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:43:01 PM EST
    many Obama supporters (certainly not all) are new to politics.  In some ways, these new people tend to be somewhat naive about what is - and is not - acceptable in political discourse.  I think that this accounts for the personal tone of the critism of Clinton.  It also accounts for treating politics as what some have described "spectator sports".  The cheering at the caucuses, the groupthink, the youthful enthusiasm, that we see with Obama supporters.  "My team is great and yours sucks," etc.

    The point of all of this is Olbermann is sort of new to this politics stuff, himself.  What is he most known for?  Sports.  He's a sportscaster.  I think that he honestly thinks that it is OK to treat politics like a sport - its win or lose and you have to choose sides.  He has chosen and is now a cheerleader.

    Olbermann is not politically naive (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:33:47 PM EST
    He spent more than a year on MSNBC in the 90s doing "Crisis in the White House," also known as "All Monica All the Time."  He was as responsible as anyone in sensationalizing and perpetuating the Monica-hysteria, even though he was nominally being "fair" to the President.

    He supposedly quit in disgust over the show.  But he knew what he was doing while he was doing it.

    [ Parent ]

    He's a goofball (none / 0) (#244)
    by Burned on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:38:04 PM EST
    I believe he is simply catering to what he perceives to be the larger, more popular crowd.
    I was totally turned off when he started posting on DKos. It seemed sort of crass for someone that might want to be seen as a serious newsman to post on a partisan website, hawking their latest show.


    [ Parent ]
    Another anti-Hillary incident -- host suspended (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:44:41 PM EST
    Afternoon radio host Randi Rhodes was suspended "indefinitely" Thursday for repeatedly using vulgar language likening Clinton to a prostitute at an event near San Francisco late March.
    excellent! (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:49:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Good. (5.00 / 6) (#128)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:51:12 PM EST
    A "progressive" talk show host who calls Democrats whores in public has no business on the air.

    [ Parent ]
    The comments were directed to both (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:52:31 PM EST
    Clinton and Ferraro calling then "whores"

    [ Parent ]
    Amen to that! (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by angie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:57:08 PM EST
    It's about time. I can't believe she has gotten away with it for this long.

    [ Parent ]
    Jeebus Crow, what's happening to people? (5.00 / 6) (#169)
    by blogtopus on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:12:36 PM EST
    I listened to Randi before the primaries... she seemed strongly opinionated but at least sensible.

    Some of the smartest people I know have become crazy anti-clintonistas, saying and believing anything as long as it painted Hillary/Bill in the worst light possible. What the hell happened to them? Sometimes I think I'm the one who went insane, and that my sense of up/down right/wrong has been completely reversed.

    Seriously, this primary is going to have a HELL of a hangover for a lot of people.

    [ Parent ]

    You are going Sane (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:54:24 PM EST
    in a Crazy World.  Thus sayeth The Tick.

    I'm not the only one who has compared this echo chamber effect to the run up to Bush's War.  The only difference is that now the blogs are involved - on both sides.  I'm not sure what that says about Teh Blogs.

    [ Parent ]

    surprisingly Mathews could go scott-free (none / 0) (#119)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:47:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sigh. Is this so difficult to comprehend? (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Marco21 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:46:15 PM EST
    When Keith disses Hillary's camp but gives Obama a pass and a pat on the ass for the exact same thing, we're just supposed to pretend like it never happened because Keith  hammers the GOP on their ass-hattery?

    I guess I should send Randi Rhodes flowers and candy welcoming her back to the air when she does return, although I find the comments she's made toward Hillary a disgrace. After all, she did slam Bush for 8 years.

    I deleted comments (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:51:47 PM EST
    that seemed not to make sense after my deletion of trollish comment.

    Tear Down THIS Wall is suspended. Do not respond to his comment as they will be deleted.

    The other troll is in the process of being banned.

    Air America just suspended Rhodes (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:54:25 PM EST
    for her remarks about Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro.

    Now how about Mike Malloy (none / 0) (#168)
    by nellre on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:11:29 PM EST
    He broadcast a speech HRC gave that day (a couple of days ago now) and laughed hysterically toward the end. I was embarrassed for him. Her speech was good, and there was nothing to laugh at.
    I guess that she was shouting over the applause was what he thought earned his contempt.

    All this baffles me. We used to be for the same things. HRC and Obama are very similar, especially when compared to McCain... so this chasm is manufactured... by whom? It's so Rovian.

    [ Parent ]

    Rovian, indeed (none / 0) (#197)
    by Lou Grinzo on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:00:24 PM EST
    I often wonder what would happen if the rabid supporters of Clinton and Obama could see a video of Rove talking to some of his colleagues on the right and laughing at the way the Dems are tearing themselves apart.  Would they stop acting like idiots?  Would they stop for at least a little while and then drift right back to their old ways?  Or would they ignore it because they're having too much fun poking each other with sharp sticks?

    The one thing I am sure of is that Rove and his ilk must be laughing themselves hoarse.

    [ Parent ]

    Rhodes comments were truly disgusting (none / 0) (#187)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:49:31 PM EST
    and vile. As far as I am concerned she is just another self loathing female.  

    He style is more like late night comedienne, when the kids are in bed or for the Howard Stern show. Hard to believe that she was the
    lead commentator for Air America and Democrats. Ugh

    [ Parent ]

    Fantastic to hear! Randi Rhodes (none / 0) (#225)
    by hairspray on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:41:57 PM EST
    has gone over the line many times.  Air America is being wise.  She brought on one lawsuit.  I don't think they are able to take too many hits.

    [ Parent ]
    Recall Keith on the night of Passport Gate? (5.00 / 6) (#144)
    by Marco21 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:57:32 PM EST
     Almost a full hour on Obama's passport files getting breached when there was little information on any specifics at the time.

    Then Keith and Schuster try to pin it on Hillary at the end of the hour, without so much as a shred of evidence.

    Sadly, I was not able to watch Countdown the next day after it became known that all three remaining candidates' passport files were breached.

    I am sure Keith apologized for his brazen conspiracy theory though, right?

    Anyone see that show? i sadly missed his mea culpa, along with Huffpo's, etc.

    I did see a bit of it (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:34:57 PM EST
    No apologies about the prior night's "speculation."

    [ Parent ]
    I missed (none / 0) (#228)
    by sas on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:48:32 PM EST
    Keith's reply after the one-hour passport show.

    Olberman's one hour on Obama's passport breach was the funniest thing my family and I have seen all year on television.

    We were laughing so hard at Keith, who was so deadly serious.  You would have thought someone dropped a nuclear bomb on NYC.  

    Oh, the conspiracy!  Must have been a Hillary supporter!  Another Watergate break -in!  

    Funny stuff!

    [ Parent ]

    Does Keith get checks from the Obama (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by isaac on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:02:35 PM EST
    campaign?  nope, he's a true believer

    MSNBC top executives (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Saul on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:18:18 PM EST
    to include the CEO of General Electric are in the tank for Obama and Keith and Tweety have the green light from them to continue the Hilary bashing and the fawning of Obama.  Its that simple.

    madamb...you're wrong in saying.. (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by Saul Goode on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:20:41 PM EST
    ...this:I was a nightly KO watcher and he was not a Hater. The Hatred seemed to come after Shuster was suspended.

    Olbermann has always been a hater. It's just that your perspective has changed because of toward whom he is directing his hate.

    He is nothing but a biased loud-mouthed jackass. You simply overlooked his verbal vomitus because he had limited his jackassery previously to attacks on those on the right

    Calling him a "news reader" (5.00 / 10) (#151)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:32:45 PM EST
    is a nice touch.

    Bagelch, this Olbermann (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:44:51 PM EST
    discussion by folks who never, ever watch Olbermann, is a daily feature of Talk Left.  

    I have actually never watched him.. (none / 0) (#243)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:37:58 PM EST
    I only know about KO from what I read on blogs. Seriously. I don't watch news opinion shows, I have my own opinions and do not need programming or re-enforcement. But I do enjoy reading about the various people you all watch.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm pretty tired of it, since I don't (none / 0) (#262)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:32:49 PM EST
    watch what everyone is obsessing about.  I'm ready to read post on Iraq war again.  

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton is lucky to have Rendell (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by magster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:57:01 PM EST
    He's a very likeable surrogate from a key state who speaks frankly and who doesn't bash Obama too much.

    (OT: Is TalkLeft super slow on anyone else's internet browser today?)

    To Jaman (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:15:32 PM EST
    Hate to break this to you but if Sen. Obama wins, the responsibility for making sure Clinton supporters "heal" is on Obama and his supporters. That is the burden of being the winner. You shouldn't believe that that healing is just a question of the passage of time.

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by sas on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:32:57 PM EST
    the Obama camp expects time to heal all wounds, and so does the Dem party leadership.

    Right, I'm just gonna get over how they have trashed and slandered my candidate.

    Mistake!

    [ Parent ]

    Same here, I will vote, but (none / 0) (#246)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:40:11 PM EST
    they aren't getting any more money. Not one damn cent. Hillary will get the rest of what I am able to give. The DNC can go sit on a stick.

    [ Parent ]
    Media bias thread? TPM Watch? (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by Oje on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:51:14 PM EST
    JMM, 1:59PM:

    The 'Salience' of Race

    As we all know, there have been repeated claims over the course of this election season that the Clinton campaign has 'injected' race into the campaign in order to build up their voting advantage among white voters.

    Let's start by setting aside whether that's true or not and focus on what it means and whether it actually would matter.

    JMM, 3:50PM:

    More Than Just Race

    A number of TPM Readers have written in to suggest that in my posts today about racialized voting I seem to be treating it as an assumption that whites voting for Clinton are doing so because they're not willing to vote for Obama because he's black. So to dispel any confusion that's definitely not what I'm saying....

    ... if Barack Obama fails to make serious inroads with working class white Democrats in Pennsylvania that will mean that these voters actually refuse to vote for him either because he is black or because of the Wright issue, which is in many respects a proxy for the issue of race.

    So in many respects it seems to me that Clinton is the one who in her current argument is reducing her candidacy to being largely about race.

    Does TPM use an Obama-talking-point-memo bot to product its text now?

    lol... (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Oje on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:53:47 PM EST
    I just realized he wrote, in the second to last sentence: "black.... is a proxy for the issue of race." Brilliant!

    [ Parent ]
    Anyone in PA who votes for (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:50:06 PM EST
    Clinton instead of Obama is doing so only because of race?

    Is mandatory health care a proxy for race?

    Is having a more detailed plan for getting out of Iraq a proxy for race?

    Is having a more detailed economic plan a proxy for race?

    Has Josh really come to this?

    [ Parent ]

    To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:41:09 PM EST
    the clip posted here is a little misleading.  JMM says its the Clinton camp, not him, that is asserting that white people won't vote for Obama because of race. But I have a hard time time believing they are actually saying that.

    [ Parent ]
    Race and Obama (none / 0) (#240)
    by lentinel on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:21:46 PM EST
    Reasons for not voting for Obama:

    I don't like him.
    I don't trust him.
    His chances against McCain are slim, at best.

    As far as race is concerned - If we were about to elect a black American with limited legislative experience I wish it could be Morgan Freeman.

    [ Parent ]

    Let Morgan Freeman keep making great movies (none / 0) (#247)
    by NotThatStupid on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:43:28 PM EST
    ... me, I just wish that some party could have persuaded Colin Powell to run in 2000 or 2004. I think he'd have won in a landslide. Against anybody.

    As for Olbermann et al: beh, they're beneath contempt, but, like most 'celebrities' the more you talk about them - negatively or positively - the more you feed their overinflated sense of self-importance.

    [ Parent ]

    Colin Powell (none / 0) (#271)
    by lentinel on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:42:14 AM EST
    I agree that Colin Powell could have won had he chosen to run in 2000.

    But I don't think he could have won in 2004 after he betrayed us all by delivering that b.s. speech at the U.N.

    And I don't believe for a second that he didn't know what he was doing.

    As for Morgan Freeman - I'm glad he's making films.
    But what I meant was that he radiates such honesty and integrity that I wish that some politician on the scene could express these same qualities.

    He is one celebrity (Gene Hackman is another) who has retained his humanity in spite of all the attention and fame. A rare person.

    [ Parent ]

    Comments open again (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:52:38 PM EST
    Comments are open again, the troll has been deleted. It was ObamaMama who registered as 8 users today, including the offensively named one. All such registrations and comments and comment ratings by him/her have been erased. Thanks to all of you who e-mailed me about it.

    seems an odd thing to do (none / 0) (#183)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:42:55 PM EST
    almost a little desperate

    [ Parent ]
    I spotted that one fairly early over (none / 0) (#255)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:20:52 PM EST
    at the orange site weeks ago.

    I am not sure that some of these people making trouble on either side are all actually candidate supporters - and if they are... they're really awful ambassadors for their candidates.

    [ Parent ]

    Why have my comments been deleted? (none / 0) (#185)
    by Saul Goode on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:44:47 PM EST
    Did I offend someone?

    [ Parent ]
    No. There was a troll (none / 0) (#230)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:56:45 PM EST
    on board.  You just got caught up in the clean up.

    [ Parent ]
    Ruppert Murdock's daughter... (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by hopeyfix on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:58:08 PM EST
    ... is holding Obama a fundraiser tonight.

    Just mentioned on CNN.

    I shall say no more.

    A-List Blogger Alert (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:30:45 PM EST
    Clinton talks to Scaife - howls of outrage.  Murdoch's daughter fundraises for Obama - mum silence or frantic defense of their chosen candidate.  And, of course, if Murdoch's daughter was fundraising for Clinton, how would they react (we know the answer of course)?

    [ Parent ]
    Rendell clearly is (4.33 / 6) (#4)
    by vigkat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:55:38 PM EST
    nobody's fool.  Good for him for calling it like it is.  I would be refreshing to see more people of his stature doing the same.

    I hear he's actually a wild hair (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:03:09 PM EST
    which personally I think is a good thing in a  governor.

    When he thinks about what he says, I hear he's brilliant.


    [ Parent ]

    Perspective, please. (4.25 / 4) (#152)
    by bagelche on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:39:28 PM EST
    I have greatly enjoyed reading talkleft pretty much daily for over 5 years, but I'm become very disillusioned over the tone of posts from Jeralyn and "Big Tent Democrat" (a name that seems to have lost its meaning of late), including this one.  To me it's not an issue of being a supporter of Hillary or Obama, its about how we work collectively to attempt to right this ship of state that is destroying our nation and our world.

    Keith Olbermann is far from perfect (who isn't?) and chances are he is an Obama supporter, but seriously...the comments here are losing perspective.  No matter what I've heard from KO, he is no Bill O'Reilly, he is no Rush Limbaugh, he is no Glenn Beck, he is not one of the truly poisonous.

    Go ahead and point out how you feel someone is slighting your candidate, distorting their record or platform, but please don't sink into the hole of all is lost if [my candidate] doesn't win the Democratic nomination.

    And, for Randell to claim that Fox News has done "the fairest job [and] remained the most objective of all the cable networks."  That is ludicrous. They are still vile, hate-filled liars who distort the record of any and every Democratic (and any Republicans who don't agree with 'em--just give 'em a "D" after their names).

    Support Clinton, I support you.  Support Obama, I support you.  Undermine the progressive movement, I will object.  And, if you think this is just because I'm some anti-Clinton flack, I've  stopped going to Daily Kos for pretty much the same reason.

    with love,
    bagelche

    Objection (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:54:19 PM EST
    I have never bashed Olbermann. And my tone is always civil. This site is civil.

    [ Parent ]
    Olbermann's reaction (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by nellre on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:05:11 PM EST
    Olbermann's reaction to one of HRC's mistakes (Bosnia) was nothing short of hysteria. I was so offended I have not watched since. Perhaps you missed that one.


    [ Parent ]
    I (none / 0) (#223)
    by sas on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:40:15 PM EST
    missed the Bosnia one, thankfully.

    I refused the David uke one, because itwas Soooo out of bounds....absolutely shameful.

    His rants are disgraceful.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree (5.00 / 5) (#172)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:19:42 PM EST
    On many points. The commentators here are pretty civil imo. I think they actually hold back a lot. And I have not seen either EVER say everything is lost if HC is not the nominee. I have in fact seen the opposite: we'll pull together and support the nominee is their position (not sure its mine yet).

    As for KO: he has really gone off the deep end. Its not even about bias, or liking one candidate or another. He really is as bad as Rush, just on another end of the spectrum. I am for all causes liberal, but WILL NOT tolerate the same kind of bafoonery and twisted hateful attitude from the left that is the staple of the right.

    I fight for liberal causes by preserving the honesty and integrity of the liberal voice FIRST.

    [ Parent ]

    Some commenters here who support (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:22:26 PM EST
    Clinton have stated they will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee.  I strongly disagree with that position, although I voted for Clinton.  My rationale:  if McCain is elected, his nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court, if confirmed, will be the death knell for Roe v. Wade.

    [ Parent ]
    I am on the fence (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:28:54 PM EST
    And I have said before that SCOTUS is a big deal for me, specially for all privacy related issues. I think if Obama is the nominee I will come around, but right now I can't say that. To paraphrase someone else: I'll have to see, I'll wait and see how he behaves and decide. Right now the way he and his surrogates are behaving has really turned me off.


    [ Parent ]
    What kind of noises would McCain have to make.. (none / 0) (#191)
    by ineedalife on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:50:25 PM EST
    to blunt the Supreme Court concerns? He must realize this is the sticking point with alot indies and Reagan Dems. Even with moderate Republicans that have left the party over the last decade. I am sure he will try to sound rationale with respect to the court. And remember if the Dems in the Senate would just do their fricking jobs we wouldn't have to worry about crazy right wing judges.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain sd. he would nominate judges (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:56:16 PM EST
    in the mold of Roberts and Alito.

    [ Parent ]
    I am on the fence (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:28:55 PM EST
    And I have said before that SCOTUS is a big deal for me, specially for all privacy related issues. I think if Obama is the nominee I will come around, but right now I can't say that. To paraphrase someone else: I'll have to see, I'll wait and see how he behaves and decide. Right now the way he and his surrogates are behaving has really turned me off.


    [ Parent ]
    I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:42:34 PM EST
    I'm a Clinton supporter who a few months ago assumed that if Obama was the nominee I'd support him with enthusiasm.  Not much enthusiasm right now for the prospect of Obama as the nominee. Perhaps I'd be more enthusiastic about him if I hadn't stayed so long at That Other Place. But in the end I'll vote for him -- even though he won't need my NY vote -- because I can't condone, even by silence, the election of John McCain.

    McCain as president will be more than just the death knell of Roe. The imperialization of the Executive Branch will be set in stone. We don't even have to get to 100 Years In Iraq and Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran and I Don't Understand Economics to understand just how devastating a McCain presidency would be.

    But Obama should not assume, as he once said, that he would keep all of Clinton's supporters.  Not all Democrats were taught virtually from birth, as I was, that not voting is almost as much of a mortal sin as not voting Democratic.

    [ Parent ]

    McCain would be a puppet (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:54:08 PM EST
    for the Right.  

    He had to have Lieberman's help in figuring out that Iran is Shi'a and al Qaeda is Sunni and the two are natural enemies....

    McCain didn't know that condoms prevent the spread of AIDS and said he would default to the Bush position on contraception.   McCain doesn't know much about the economy.....McCain's handlers would fill in the gaps....  

    [ Parent ]

    I thought Obama was a liberal on (none / 0) (#232)
    by hairspray on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:58:41 PM EST
    choice, but when I heard about his connections to some of the radical black churches I was reminded of how anti-abortion many of them are.  There is a belief among many of them that abortion is a form of genocide against African Americans. There is also a strong bias against homosexuals in many of the more traditional black churches. Since Obama stayed in his church for 20+ years I have to wonder if he is completely divorced from their deeply held convictions.

    [ Parent ]
    I was reassured by his recent "punished by (none / 0) (#239)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:21:46 PM EST
    having a baby" comment.

    [ Parent ]
    Meeks Is A Case... (none / 0) (#249)
    by AmyinSC on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:49:25 PM EST
    In point to prove your point.  He is VIRULENTLY anti-gay.  Add Donnie McClurkin to those associates, and it does not bode well, IMO.

    And speaking of the LGBT community, Clinton had an interview with the Philadelphia Gay News today - the only candidate who accepted the invitation(naturally).  It was a pretty good interview.  My favorite part was when the interviewer asked if she would talk to them if she becomes the nominee.  She said she'd talk to them as president.  Just one of the many reasons I want her as my president!

    [ Parent ]

    This meme... (none / 0) (#251)
    by Alec82 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:56:11 PM EST
    ...is tired.  The gay community is not going to broaden their support by shutting out religious voters.  Senator Obama has made it clear that he will be an advocate for the gay community.  So far, he has not called DOMA "a progressive" vote or suggested it was done in response to a nonexistent (at the time) call for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.  Senator Clinton does not favor repeal of the full faith and credit clause of DOMA, Senator Obama does.  Senator Obama belongs to a church that blesses same-sex marriages.  Senator Clinton belongs to a church that prohibits same-sex marriages and openly gay clergy.  I mean, I could go on.  

    [ Parent ]
    I have not made up my mind yet (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by standingup on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:03:15 PM EST
    Two or three months ago, I was making the same point as you.  After the last two to three months of the primaries, I will not vote for Obama just because he is the Democratic nominee.  But as long as we have a Demoratic majority in Congress, that can act as a Democratic majority, they will have the power to be a check on any extreme decisions from McCain.  

    [ Parent ]
    I'll second you on that (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by MMW on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:11:07 PM EST
    I'll vote down ticket, not President.

    [ Parent ]
    Unfortunately, if you pay attention (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:12:33 PM EST
    the boat to protect Roe v Wade sailed with the confirmation of Roberts. Best we can hope for is to delay.

    Plus SCOTUS issued an opinion saying women have to be protected from their decisions when discussing the late term abortion ban.

    So, for those of us who pay attention, it isn't such a critical issue. Protecting the right to choose will come from working with Congress and the states, not fighting for the courts, or even the White House.

    After 20 years or so, it may be courts again, but our focus for the meantime has to be elsewhere.

    Another reason you cannot afford to take Clinton supporters for granted.

    [ Parent ]

    Believe me, I'm paying attention. (none / 0) (#208)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:20:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You get a smiley face from me (none / 0) (#252)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:05:05 PM EST
    the minute they say women have to be "protected", that's when I start getting mad.

    [ Parent ]
    That's it all right. What a dismissive (none / 0) (#261)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:31:04 PM EST
    paternalistic attitude for the new millenium.

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree on using Roe to swing support to BO (5.00 / 6) (#220)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:33:22 PM EST
    It's totally unfair, and as I otherwise respect your insights and commentary here, I know your intent isn't fear mongering for feminists.

    However, I'm sick of the "panicky 3:00am phonecall" to feminists from other parties -- usually Dem men who otherwise don't give a crap about RvW except when the wimminfolk stray from the herd during election seasons -- that drag out Roe to attempt to scare us back into formation.

    Most D-before-She types spend way too many blovi-hours telling women to STFU about the "special interest" of wanting a say over our damn bodies.

    I don't believe Obama will do anything to liberalize the SCOTUS as much as Bush/Cheney have made it activist hard right. BO's entire campaign is based on uniting with the RW even at the cost of destroying his own Dems. He's in the pocket to too many RW HRC / Clinton-haters, many substantially to the right, so my crystal ball (YMMV) and I suspect O'Connor would be as "centrist" ("left") as he'd go.

    What I'd prefer, and is my "fallback", is a more muscular Congress that does it's freakin' job of vetting nominees.

    They could have, and should have, prevented the stonewalling and anointing of Roberts and scAlito -- and didn't. Even Leahy rolled over like the toothless waste of a seat that he is and SUPPORTED the hard right activism. (Insert vituperative stream of consciousness cuss'n'fuss here.)

    [ Parent ]

    ellie, (5.00 / 3) (#231)
    by leis on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:56:47 PM EST
    i want you to be Clinton's vp. you stated exactly how i feel.

    [ Parent ]
    Since my Dad's crushing on HRC like a schoolboy (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:15:35 PM EST
    ... having me on the ticket too might be too much for the big old Repug cat to bear.

    I don't know if I'd pass an hour of the oppo, but thanks for the nod!

    [ Parent ]

    Gosh (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:22:10 PM EST
    KO compared Hillary to David Duke.  Makes me wonder at what point you would agree that he's gone over the edge.

    [ Parent ]
    Davd Duke? (none / 0) (#184)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:44:01 PM EST
    David "Grand Kleagle" Duke? He actually said that?

    I didn't know he'd gone that nuts....

    [ Parent ]

    Her campaign anyway (none / 0) (#207)
    by eleanora on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:18:15 PM EST
    "To not distance you from it, Senator! To not distance you... from that which you as a woman, and Senator Obama as an African-American, should both know and feel with the deepest of personal pain! Which you should both fight with all you have! Which you should both insure, has no place in this contest! Voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth. Your only reaction has been to disagree, reject, and to call it regrettable. Her only reaction has been to brand herself as the victim, resign from your committee, and insist she will continue to speak.

    Somebody tells her that simply disagreeing with and rejecting the remarks is sufficient. And she should then call, "regrettable", words that should make any Democrat retch. And that she should then try to twist them, first into some pox-on-both-your-houses plea to 'stick to the issues,' and then to let her campaign manager try to bend them beyond all recognition, into Senator Obama's fault. And thus these advisers give Congresswoman Ferraro nearly a week in which to send Senator Clinton's campaign back into the vocabulary... of David Duke."

    link


    [ Parent ]

    Ugh (none / 0) (#258)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:58:03 PM EST
    I've never read that Special Comment.  I listened to it, but I think my mind switched off after the phrase "awash in this filth."

    [ Parent ]
    Two points (5.00 / 8) (#178)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:32:44 PM EST
    First, it's interesting that you edited out the bit of Rendell's quote where he said Fox "hates both our candidates."

    Second, someone like Olbermann is worse than an O'Reilly.  He's the Lieberman of the airwaves - a putative "liberal" who spends most of his time bashing dems.  People think that it was the Republican media that sunk Al Gore in 2000, but that would not have been effective without Maureen Dowd, Eugene Robinson, Frank Rich, Gail Collins and others advancing - or even creating! - the anti-Gore stories.  They did it to Kerry too (Maureen Dowd being the "clever" one who came up with the Kerry quote, "Who among us doesn't love NASCAR?" which he never said.)

    The Big Liberal Pundits are the worst of the worst because they pretend to be on our side while they denigrate actual Democrats and everything we stand for (because a 15 minute discussion of health care is oh so boring, dontcha know).  If we are ever to truly win the message game, these folks have to go.

    Olbermann is doing exactly what those folks did in 2000 and 2004.  Right now, he's only doing it to Clinton.  But it is still wrong.  And Democrats should be just as hard on so-called liberal pundits who devalue our brand and slander our candidates as we are on Republicans.  In fact, we should be harder on them.

    [ Parent ]

    "Awash in filth" (none / 0) (#192)
    by eleanora on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:50:34 PM EST
    is what Keith O called Hillary after Ferraro's comment that Obama's candidacy was helped by him being black. He ranted for a good ten minutes on it. Yet when MacCaskill and Kerry came out a few days later saying things that sounded a lot worse, about Obama being the first black politician not to present himself as a victim and that we should vote for him because he's black, Olbermann was silent.

    Apparently for Olbermann, you're only "awash in filth" if you are Hillary or supporting Hillary, and that's a double standard I can't abide. He's also ignored and even downplayed the rabid sexism and gender bias permeating this election. If prejudice and bias is wrong, then it's wrong in every case, not just when it affects  your candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    I think he started freaking out (4.20 / 5) (#1)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:52:14 PM EST
    after HRC voiced her objections to David Shuster's "pimp" remark. He was actually pretty balanced before then.

    All of a sudden, after that, he became a Hillary Hater of massive proportions...and completely unwatchable because of it.

    No he was always in tank with him (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:55:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    but I started freaking it out after the special co (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:56:24 PM EST
    comments he made for Clinton

    [ Parent ]
    Which for me (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by vigkat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:01:15 PM EST
    was the final straw.  Eyes wide open now, and I cannot watch him.

    [