Rendell: Olbermann The Most Biased News Reader In The World

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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
    "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'".


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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

    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....


    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.  

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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
    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
    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.

    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.


    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..

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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
    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.

    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"

    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.

    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.


    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.


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


    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.


    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


    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.

    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."

    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!


    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.

    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.  

    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.



    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.

    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!

    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?


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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

    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.


    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?

    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.

    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)?

    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.


    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,

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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....  


    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.

    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.

    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!


    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.  

    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.  

    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.

    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.


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

    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.

    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.)


    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.

    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!


    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.

    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....


    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."



    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."

    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.


    "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.


    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
    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

    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.

    Yesterday, (4.20 / 5) (#9)
    by flashman on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:00:04 PM EST
    I held my nose and watched it on "youtube."  Most disgraceful exhibit of pandering I've ever seen.  He started with a "guilt by association" rant, then threw in the kitchen sink, blathering on about Hillary's effort to reach out, among other rants.  He's totally ruined his reputation.  

    Really? (1.00 / 0) (#12)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:01:49 PM EST
    I was a nightly KO watcher and he was not a Hater. The Hatred seemed to come after Shuster was suspended.

    Perhaps he secretly favored Obama all along, but I never noticed it.


    I noticed it (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by flashman on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:05:54 PM EST
    during the New Hampshire primary, when he went on a rant about "attacks" during Hillary's crying moment.  Attacks that never occured.

    The crying moment...Oh yes. (none / 0) (#181)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:41:49 PM EST
    It is odd that they were making it sound just like a woman. Emotional. And then the other night on NBC's Biggest Loser, the men were sobbing as another member left. Sobbing. Nothing wrong with that. It shows heart. But, how can a reporter point to Hillary's emotional eye misting without noting that all people have their moments of emotion.

    yes, It takes a while for the old love to die (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:06:09 PM EST
    I was his fan.. and could not believe what he was doing..

    I am hopping one day he will put HIS name as the "Worst Person in this World" at least for one day.


    That must be it. (none / 0) (#40)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:18:45 PM EST
    Love is blind. ;-)

    Is Olbermann has a problem with Shuster (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:37:34 PM EST
    being suspended, he has a problem with his thought processes.

    A political campaign isn't MTV, and I gotta a problem with that language there too.


    He was clearly favorably disposed to (5.00 / 5) (#147)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:04:06 PM EST
    Obama, but he would occasionally say something positive about Clinton, or debunk a particularly silly claim about her. He didn't go out of his way to trash her, even though he was already fawning over Obama.  After one fair and balanced statement about Clinton, he felt compelled to write a diary on DK assuring Kossacks that the prior night's statement about Clinton did not mean he was endorsing her. Said he was endorsing no one, blah blah blah, but clearly was rattled by the mere suggestion that he was pro-Clinton.

    Shortly thereafter, Shuster used the p-word, and KO dropped any pretense of objectivity, and started actively trashing Clinton.  Remember, Shuster was being punished not only for his own sin, but the repeated sins of Chris "She's Only In The Senate Because Bill Messed Around" Matthews. As much as I think KO hates Tweety, the MSNBC Boys stick together when they think they're being held to, you know, standards.


    Thing about that "p" word (none / 0) (#201)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:03:23 PM EST
    was the Obama supporters bending over into little twists claiming it was no big deal, and no it didn't mean that Chelsea was a certain profession, even though the "p" word means it does.

    Chalk another reason why I think Obama would need to work very hard to win over core female support.

    The absolute cluelessness of his cadre online.


    Obama didn't defend Shuster (none / 0) (#209)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:21:15 PM EST
    People online:  pfft.

    but he defended Wright and condemned Imus (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:27:37 PM EST
    why? ... go figure!!

    I mentioned Obama's supporters (none / 0) (#237)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:10:28 PM EST
    pay attention.

    Obama's supporters online did.


    It's a convenient excuse (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by vigkat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:59:18 PM EST
    But in my opinion, it is not the cause.  Olbermann has his own agenda, and it apparently coincides with what the network wants him to accomplish.  I used to wonder how he got away with it; now, it is fairly obvious.  He's doing what he is supposed to be doing.

    [Calling It Your Job] (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by flashman on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:02:41 PM EST
    That don't make it right.

    ~Cool Hand Luke


    I concur (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by vigkat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:15:25 PM EST
    My comment must have been unclear.  I have lost any respect I might have had for him.  He has gone off the rails, and although it may appear that he is selling out and doing the bidding of his corporate overlords, I suspect what he says is what he really thinks, which is a nicely convenient coincidence.

    Which I think (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by bjorn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:04:08 PM EST
    is to capture the 18-30 demographic.  This is what I think he has been doing or what they want him to do.  He used to always brag about beating BillO with this demographic.  And they are more for Obama.

    Good point. (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:21:29 PM EST
    He's bragged about that demographic multiple times on his show.

    Exactly right (none / 0) (#272)
    by vigkat on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:33:46 PM EST
    Wow (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:15:10 PM EST
    Rendell is an idiot.  Of course KO biased, he's the O'Reily foil.  It thought it was obvious that Countdown was a comedic opinion show and not hard, objective news.  You expect balanced journalism from a show with stick puppets?

    Noooo (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:16:27 PM EST
    Rendell is smart. Olbermann is the idiot.

    He decided to be biased against a Democrat.

    You seem not too swift yourself.


    Getting personal now are we? (none / 0) (#39)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:18:42 PM EST
    I am hear to amuse you (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:21:17 PM EST
    or so you told me yesterday.

    Getting a thin skin now are you? I tell you what then - I'll apply a strict standard with you.


    No I said I am here to be amused (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:23:33 PM EST
    by you.

    Rendell has sided with FOX... (none / 0) (#46)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:21:08 PM EST
    who has done worse for the Dems the last five years?

    Rendell did not side with Fox (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:23:20 PM EST
    He said Fox hated both Obama and Clinton. Come on, he's right about that. And he's right about the bias in so much of the rest of the media too.

    the interesting thing is (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:48:54 PM EST
    I have been watching FOX sometimes.  its sort of fun.
    its idiotic but it knows its idiotic.  I mean, there is a picture of an almost naked lady every 5 minutes.
    unlike MSNBC with Tweety and Olberbamaman and Williams and the king of all self important "journalists" Timmah who take themselves soooooo seriously.

    Olbermann (none / 0) (#100)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:40:29 PM EST
    No one ever took FNC seriously.

    KO takes himself seriously (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:19:23 PM EST
    despite the occasional funny bit.  He is not rying to be a comedian, though some of those special comments out-do Colbert in the fake outrage department.

    Not like Colbert (none / 0) (#73)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:32:24 PM EST
    More like Glenn Beck.  I'm sure Kieth would love being compare to O'Reily and Beck, but it's apt.

    Bias is no prob but a commentator has to have more (none / 0) (#234)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:04:38 PM EST
    I happen to like strong, idividualistic voices in media, left right or center. I gravitate to those voices that regularly bring insight, intelligence, ethics and a dash of style to their commentary.

    I don't like these times for the assumption that rote repetition of the day's laundry list of talking points will accomplish something -- and that an empty exercise of "boosting" the self-esteem of one's "side" by rah-rahing them just for showing up, as if they were pee-wee athletes -- accomplishes anything.

    That approach just further infantilizes the process we have now.

    C'mon, what could be more vibrant, fascinating, and enthralling than the challenges we have before us and we as a society -- as a PLANET -- coming together to save our world???

    Why narcotize ourselves against that with mind-numbing, heart-slowing, soul-eroding pap that O'Reilly and Olbermann bring?

    I want to decide the merits of an argument based on signal not noise.

    But then, I like my food unchewed and non- pre-digested. I read whole actual books that aren't the ones making the talk show rounds and strangely manage to navigate through moral and ethical choices without the kind of velvet roped lab rat maze intended to keep people proceeding in an orderly fashion to someone's else's agenda.


    Olbermann does not consider himself a (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:31:13 PM EST
    joke---that is obvious.

    Olbermann is the worst kind of idiot... (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:40:48 PM EST
    ...because he believes himself to be really, really much smarter and insightful than anyone else. He honestly believes that he is a modern day Edward R. Murrow, but he reminds me more of Murrow's nemesis: the hyperventilating, bombastic, disproportionate, eyes bulging out of his head, Joe McCarthy.  

    Olbermann (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:48:05 PM EST
    did predict the correct winner of the Super Bowl, and had noted that Eli Manning was a very good come-from-behind QB.  His analysis of Brady's sore ankle and how Brady missed throws he usually had made during the regular season with god-like precision (even when under pressure) was the best analysis of the Super Bowl.

    He was a big foe of Impeachment, lest anyone forget, and of course of Bush.

    The guy is smart and does his own thing on his show.  On straight news reporting on the night of the primaries, he has been restrained, and less bombastic than Tweety.


    I think that Olberman (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by blogtopus on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:08:17 PM EST
    Is a very opinionated man who for a while happened to have some of the same opinions we all shared. I don't hold him responsible for mirroring everything I believe, so I don't hate him for his in-the-tankness.

    I just don't like that he has a microphone, as you say, and is another of the seemingly endless mike'd sycophants giving free campaign advertising time for Obama.

    It all just seems wildly imbalanced. That's why Faux is refreshing by comparision: All are brought low on Faux, nobody is propped up. Both Obama and Hillary are presented equally there. Not necessarily equally with McCain, that is! :-P


    FOX has an obvious (none / 0) (#186)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:45:57 PM EST
    agenda:  Play up Hillary to ensure a long and divisive Democratic Primary.

    MSNBC has David Gregory and Dan Abrams who talk up Hillary.


    Idiot is too strong a word... (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:33:18 PM EST
    ...I agree, he's intelligent, but even intelligent people say and do idiotic things if they believe they are omniscient. He's one of those people that has an answer for everything-- and nobody knows everything. He also seems to have some sort of problem with women that he's projecting into his coverage of Hillary.

    Idiot is too strong a word... (none / 0) (#218)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:33:03 PM EST
    ...I agree, he's intelligent, but even intelligent people say and do idiotic things if they believe they are omniscient. He's one of those people that has an answer for everything-- and nobody knows everything. He also seems to have some sort of problem with women that he's projecting into his coverage of Hillary.

    He used to be the most restrained (none / 0) (#236)
    by hairspray on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:06:25 PM EST
    on election night reviews.  I doubt that will be the case in the next few months.

    Ed (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by sas on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:44:04 PM EST
    Rendell is the best!

    He's the Gov here in PA.

    He doesn't pull punches.  That's why talk show hosts like to have him on.  He does not engage in doublespeak.

    Very popular Governor.....


    Stop Watching Obamamann Please (1.00 / 0) (#264)
    by Terry M on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:29:30 AM EST
    In the marketplace of ideas, he particular form of snideness is not necessary.

    Believe me or not, this lifeling liberal (an ACLU member no less) has never been a fan of KO.  He mocks, ridicules, shames and smears; and yes, I guess it is not so hard to take when he is doing his routine against someone I disagree with, say any Bush administration fellow. I am nevertheless very uneasy about how easily it is for him to  personally disparage another person, including the POTUS.  I didn't like it when it was done to Carter or Clinton, out of sense of fairness, I don't like when it is done to anyone.

    When I would watch occasionally, I detected a particular level of ridicule towards women.  This became more apparent with his nightly Brittany Spears mockfest.  I know she is no Marie Curie, and I know she is celebrity who has deliberately sought attention; but still, she is a human being (and parent of two small children) and she was (is?)clearly a very ill person.  Watching somebody's life fall apart is not pleasant for me; laughing at someone else's misfortune is beyond the pale.  It was like watching a beast of burden get whipped to death after it stop plowing the field.

    KO did (and so did so many others in the media) the same thing to s slew of female celebrities, like Anna Nicole Smith.  Where was the mocking of the men?  He would have female guests on the show (like Dee Dee Meyers or someone), but he never engaged these female guests fully; he was polite and perfuntory.  And when someone would disagree -off to exile.

    It is clear KO thinks he is superior to everyone else, esp. women.  That is why he can sit on his throne and announce to the world who is good and who is not, who we should hate and who should adore.  If he stuck to the ideas or the actions of another - then maybe I could watch.  But for him, everything is personal.  

    The fangs really came out for Hillary btwn Iowa and NH.  That is when I stopped watching.  The papable contempt was too much.  A letter of complaint to his email went unanswered -actually I'm suprised he didn't do a segment and what a horrible human being I am b/c I - oh horror of horrors - have the audacity to disagree with him.  Or maybe he did, and I missed it as a result of my boycott.

    The public discourse could be more civil; that is why I like TalkLeft so much.

    Mostly (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:29:12 PM EST
    Now he is not. Was there a point to your question?

    Olbermann (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:54:45 PM EST
    clearly favors Obama and reports on a lot of bad news for Hillary....I understand how one could say he is in the tank for Obama.  

    But as to lying, I would like to see some examples of how Obama lies about Hillary....


    The one that really got to me (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by eleanora on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:06:35 PM EST
    was when he accused her of leaking that photo of him to Drudge in a speech in Mississippi just a few days after he'd said she had nothing to do with it. A truly ridiculous charge, as it had been all over the internet for days prior to Drudge covering it, and the freepers were having a field day.

    Basically, he wasn't just accusing her of trying to smear him but also of being stupid.


    and Drudge is the guy (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:14:43 PM EST
    who exposed the Lewinski thing.

    Yeah, I can feel the love between the Clintons and Drudge.


    Actually, Clinton and (none / 0) (#214)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:26:41 PM EST
    Drudge had cut a deal:  access in return for good placement of pro-Hillary news.....

    There was a whole NY Times story on it late last year.  The example cited was Drudge scooping everyone on Hillary's late '07 fundraising.  The Drudge article totally bigfooted a planned Obama speech on major policy issues....    


    that Drudge deal thing (none / 0) (#235)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:04:45 PM EST
    never really sounded right to me.  if they did cut a deal, it only lasted about a week, so i doubt the whole thing.  

    Scaife, Drudge, FOX (none / 0) (#242)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:35:31 PM EST
    are now friends???....Someone is being scammed here.  Take your pick: voters, the conservatives, or Hillary?

    Olbermann, or are you referring to (none / 0) (#206)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:16:13 PM EST

    I have heard Olbermann lambast Clinton, but lie, no.


    Obama accused Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:24:33 PM EST
    of leaking the picture in MS, days after he had said she had nothing to do with it.  Yes, he lied and I imagine it happens frequently.

    I was responding to this (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by eleanora on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:25:43 PM EST
    part of your comment
    "But as to lying, I would like to see some examples of how Obama lies about Hillary.... "

    I don't watch Olbermann anymore, so I'm not sure if/when he lies about Hillary.


    I get the point.. and I agree (none / 0) (#75)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:33:08 PM EST
    I have gotten more skeptical of the media now than ever..

    I'd rather the news be reported by someone... (none / 0) (#89)
    by tbetz on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:36:57 PM EST
    ... who has a clear and open bias than by someone with a hidden bias.

    The pretense of "balanced journalism" is really a fairly recent concept in the human experience, and it was never anything more than a pretense.  What "balance" there might have been since immediately post-WWII America was always really a pro-conventional-wisdom bias -- in other words, groupthink.

    News reporters and analysts with open biases challenge groupthink in healthy ways.  That's one of the reasons I enjoy watching Olbermann.

    Interesting (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:40:10 PM EST
    That is an argument I have only heard from Republicans prior to now.

    Keith Olbermann (none / 0) (#99)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:40:22 PM EST
    states his opinion.  Many here disagree.  But KO is not beige....He was never cut out to do NPR monotone....

    yeah (none / 0) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:42:04 PM EST
    anyone old enough to remember White House in Crisis knows that

    Saul Goode... (none / 0) (#150)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:26:23 PM EST
    I used a capital "H" for Hater because I meant "Hillary Hater." Sorry to be unclear.

    Clearly he hates Bush as much as I do. But I tend to feel that way about murdering, treasonous sociopaths like George W.

    To Steve M: (as Reply seems to have disappeared) (none / 0) (#154)
    by tbetz on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:52:16 PM EST
    When did Noam Chomsky became a Republican?

    Or have you just never read his arguments about how journalists reinforce the bias of conventional wisdom?

    Have you never read "Manufacturing Consent?"

    Really, you embarass yourself.

    I have a feeling (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:23:05 PM EST
    you give yourself too much credit by suggesting you articulated a Chomsky argument.

    Do you dispute my reading of history? (none / 0) (#265)
    by tbetz on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:43:50 AM EST
    Am I incorrect in saying that there has always been bias in the news media, and that the pretense of balance is a relatively new phenomenon, and that it hides a bias toward the reinforcement of conventionla wisdom?  

    For example, would you deny that the "balanced" media, in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, re-inforced the conventional wisdom that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons program?  Would you deny that the "balanced" media re-inforced the conventional wisdom that our ships had come under unprovoked attack by North Vietnamese forces in the Gulf of Tonkin?

    Would you really prefer pretense to honesty?

    I thought realism was a Democratic virtue.

    I don't understand what makes the honest recognition of historic fact Republican.  Please enlighten me.


    Most Biased (none / 0) (#155)
    by Jaman on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:53:06 PM EST
    The Most Biased News Reader In The World is George W. Bush.  Hands down.  

    We are all biased.  We all see the world differently.  

    If Hillary was winning you would watch KO and laugh.  She isn't and you don't.  As your Big Tent becomes a Pup Tent, the world closes in and the teeth come out.  

    I just hope Penn Dems have enough sense to end this thing so you guys have enough time heal before the real fight begins.

    I think the point is... (5.00 / 3) (#216)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:31:50 PM EST
    That there are many amongst us, BTD and myself included, who want KO to report the news...not spin it.

    I could care less which candidate he's spinning for. The fact is that he's an anchor for a national cable news show...not a spin doctor for a particular campaign.

    I want him to report the news...not spin for a candidate...any candidate.


    Well, he is was and always will (5.00 / 1) (#254)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:16:52 PM EST
    be a spinner.  His spin tends left and given the amount of right spin, I'm not opposed.  I do not think he has been fair to Clinton, but I guess I've never expected him to be fair.  He is biased in his reporting which is a key part of his schtick.  I also think he has tarnished his own reputation of late because he has been sucked too far into the Clinton Obama rivalry.

    One of Clintons problems going into this race was always the media's loathing of them.  They really managed to develop one of the worst relationships with the media that I can think of.  I've never really understood it because the Bushes hate the media, but somehow always fare better with them on the whole - even outside of the Fox News universe.  Jonathan Alter was on Dan Abrams tonight saying that Clinton definitely was lying about her answer about what she told Richardson about Obama's electability.  The Clintons have never even fared well with the liberal wing of the media.  I don't know what they've done to them that provokes to this degree, but they've really built up some bad blood over the years.

    It seemed like the media was trying to be nice and give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt for months.  Then one little nick that drew blood and they all seemed to slip into their old postures like sharks in the water circling, bumping and trying to get a bite.  To me, Olbermann is just one of many who have fallen into this trap.  I also think the Obama campaign deliberately went for this weakness in the Clinton brand.  On some level, I'm more disappointed in the "hopefuly unity people" than the media who I always expected far less from.


    There was a time there... (5.00 / 1) (#257)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:50:08 PM EST
    when I fell for the "Murrow Myth." ::sigh::

    Murrow was a double-edged sword (5.00 / 1) (#259)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:33:53 PM EST
    in his own right too.  He took a point of view in his reporting.  No one can really deny that.  He did pick a side.  We like him because he picked the correct side, but that doesn't change the fact that he took a side.

    double edged, aye... (5.00 / 1) (#263)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:25:13 AM EST
    I guess the thing is that while Murrow had his opinions...and voiced them on a regular basis...he also had a good bit of evidence to support his arguments. With his comments re: POTUS and BillO' there always seemed to be a lot of evidence to support KO's positions. Those...those I was okay with.

    Lately, (granted I haven't had the time or the inclination to watch him for a few weeks), it doesn't always seem like he's been doing the same level of research to support the claims he's been making.

    The whole thing about tailoring the evidence to fit your claim vs. making sure that your argument is supported by the evidence available is something I've been talking to my students about a lot lately.


    As does every new reporter... (5.00 / 1) (#266)
    by tbetz on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:45:18 AM EST
    ... whether they will admit it or not.

    For some reason, my recognition of this fact is somehow "Republican".


    LOL (none / 0) (#267)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:48:07 PM EST
    Well, that's why I'm not really hating Olbermann.  I've always seen him as a spinner.  I've liked how he has spun other things in the past more than I've liked how he is spinning the Obama-Clinton contest, but his spinning was always apparent to me.  That makes me a "Republican" too apparently.  The biggest problem with the Obama crowd imo is that they demand a level of loyalty and devotion that far exceeds what I think anyone should ever give to a politician or even another human being.  Now if they were talking about a dog or an idea like say democracy, we might be okay, but they seem to want a blood oath or something - that I won't be giving any time soon.

    I have yet to hear a prominent Obama supporter... (none / 0) (#269)
    by tbetz on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:20:23 PM EST
    ... call anyone endorsing Hillary a traitor.

    Perhaps you can identify an example for me.

    Prominent Hillary supporters who have done so, on the other hand, are legion.


    Oh darlin' I'm caught in rock and (none / 0) (#270)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:33:05 PM EST
    a hard place between both groups.  I'm just a Democrat hoping to win the White House in November with whatever shaggy dog we nominate.  I'd say "yellow dog" but neither of these candidates fits that mold.  I've been called a traitor and a lot worse on both sides, but frankly not anywhere near as much by the Clinton supporters.  Sorry.

    hillary is winning (none / 0) (#222)
    by isaac on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:39:27 PM EST
    super tuesday, ohio and texas, pennsylvania, florida and michigan, before and after the revote

    bagleche (none / 0) (#156)
    by Marco21 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:54:47 PM EST
    I respect your comments and know where you're coming from, but it could be directed at Olbermann as well as anyone here. He's lost his perspective and fairness regarding this race and it is painfully obvious to me as a viewer. A more casual viewer now, where before I never missed Countdown. Now I feel it's a live-action version of the Huffington Post, at least for segments regarding Hillary and Obama.

    to MKS (none / 0) (#159)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:01:26 PM EST
    re:  lying about Clinton.  I introduce you to the Jeff Gerth story.

    What happened to the comments (none / 0) (#170)
    by digdugboy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:14:32 PM EST
    in Armando's "holy grail" article? Will they be returned?

    he closed them to all his threads (none / 0) (#171)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:16:33 PM EST
    when the troll started spamming. I will open them up as I don't know if he's online now.

    OK, thanks (none / 0) (#188)
    by digdugboy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:49:37 PM EST
    is irony dead? (none / 0) (#226)
    by isaac on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:42:17 PM EST
    >>>chances are he is an Obama supporter, but seriously...

    nothing could be more painfully obvious.

    i am a hillary supporter, but in the unlikely case obama should be nominated, he will have my full support.  i would never vote republican, i wish i could say the same of obama's supporters.

    I would never say never... (2.00 / 1) (#233)
    by Alec82 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:03:55 PM EST
    ...in the unlikely event I was faced with a Republican who was more progressive than the Democrat they were running against, I might consider it.  It would depend on a lot of things, including the composition of Congress, their advisors, etc.  There has never been a Republican candidate for president that fit that bill.  Senator McCain is no exception.  
     This Obama supporter will vote for Senator Clinton if she wins the nomination, even if she uses superdelegates to overcome the popular will.  But, that being said, I will probably not campaign for her.  Her surrogates have repeatedly insulted the youth and progressive vote.  If she doesn't care about inspiring those voters, fine.  She can win the election without their campaign contributions or their volunteer time.

    People are freaking out about Rendell's quote (none / 0) (#229)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:55:27 PM EST
    but it is just a simple truth.  It doesn't need to be parsed.

    Check out this blog post for instance The Reaction

    Now Clinton is "sucking up to right wing media"?  Everyone knows Fox is what it is.  Rendell dropped that "you hate both our candidates" comment in for a reason.  Because it's true, they do hate them both.  

    The Obamaite spin, that this is flattery of the right wing, whilst Obama sucks up to the right wing all the time, is hilarious.

    Sen. Clinton showed up for a sit down (none / 0) (#245)
    by halstoon on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:38:55 PM EST
    with Mr. Scaife, went on Fox herself (though it was with supposed Democrat Van Susteren), and then had her main PA surrogate calling Fox the "most fair" network for campaign coverage.
    It would appear that Mr. Obama is not alone in his right-wing sycophantry.

    And why is Rendell's quote "true"?? Fox regularly hosts Hillary-haters Dick Morris and Chris Hitchens. They do things like having Megan Kelly interview Laura Ingraham about the Rev. Wright thing in which they both take the attitude "what's with these people?" Does that sound fair??

    I'll take CNN, where at least all sides are in fact presented and the reporters actually act like reporters while trying to get to the plain truth.


    Because (none / 0) (#250)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:49:50 PM EST
    what Rendell said was that Fox treated Obama and Hillary equally in comparison to each other, not that it's a "fair" network overall.  Do you guys ever get tired of distorting really simple quotes in order to take offense?

    I am not so easily offended. I really wanted an (none / 0) (#268)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:05:23 PM EST
    honest answer. Thanks for providing one.

    I hate twisting people's words in all ways; like when Michelle Obama is talking about voter participation and people pretend she is saying she's not proud of being an American. And like taking a Christian message and turning it into an anti-America rant. Those things really irritate me.

    Bill Clinton's fairy tale comment falls into the same space. And Billy Shaheen. Those are 2 on the other side that I think got intentionally distorted.



    No. Olberman gets checks from NBC, which, (none / 0) (#253)
    by WillBFair on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:05:59 PM EST
    if I remember correctly, is owned by GE and other defense contractors. Is it any wonder NBC plays to less knowledgeable sectors of the population, makes political commentary from shallow insults, and supports a candidate with no qualifications? Corporate power wants a power vacuum in the presidency, so they can fill it. End of story.

    Has anyone seen any reference in the MSM to (none / 0) (#260)
    by TomLincoln on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:21:19 PM EST
    the fact that Trinity church has been scrubbing their website? Check out this post at Taylor Marsh and the links in it. Maybe KO will report on this.