Greenwald On Olbermann

Glenn Greenwald writes:

On January 31 of this year, Keith Olbermann donned his most serious face and most indignant voice tone to rail against George Bush for supporting telecom immunity and revisions to FISA. In a 10-minute "Special Comment," the MSNBC star condemned Bush for wanting to "retroactively immunize corporate criminals[.]" . . . Olbermann added that telecom amnesty was a "shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism -- the merged efforts of government and corporations that answer to no government."

. . . . Now that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing -- and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that this bill is necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists -- everything has changed. . . . There wasn't a syllable uttered about "immunizing corporate criminals" or "textbook examples of Fascism" or the Third Reich. There wasn't a word of rational criticism of the bill either. Instead, [Olbermann and Jon Alter] hailed Obama's bravery and strength -- as evidenced by his "standing up to the left" in order to support this important centrist FISA compromise . . . [MORE]

What's . . . notable is Olbermann's full-scale reversal on how he talks about these measures now that Obama -- rather than George Bush -- supports them. On an almost nightly basis, Olbermann mocks Congressional Democrats as being weak and complicit for failing to stand up to Bush lawbreaking; now that Obama does it, it's proof that Obama won't "cower." Grave warning on Olbermann's show that telecom amnesty and FISA revisions were hallmarks of Bush Fascism instantaneously transformed into a celebration that Obama, by supporting the same things, was leading a courageous, centrist crusade in defense of our Constitution.

Is that really what anyone wants -- transferring blind devotion from George Bush to Barack Obama? Are we hoping for a Fox News for Obama, that glorifies everything he says and whitewashes everything he does?

Well said in my opinion, and speaking for me only.

< CS& N Benefit Tonight, Open Thread | David Addington and John Yoo Testify on Torture >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    He has blatant contempt for his viewers. (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Lysis on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:35:44 PM EST
    Nothing more, nothing less.

    Olbermann is not alone (5.00 / 15) (#95)
    by talex on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:12:57 PM EST
    There are a host of bloggers who refuse to address the elephant in the room. Go to any popular Lefty Blog and you won't find much personal criticism. The problem is that once people publicly buy into Obama and tell readers he will be a Great President then they are not strong enough to admit that maybe they were wrong.

    Matt Stoller at OpenLeft makes an attempt and then in his next breath cheerleads for Obama. His sidekick Chris Bowers is spineless to say anything about it at all. Seems like Greenwald is the only one with balls to say anything about Obama which is why you see him referenced so much in the blogosphere. You know - 'Glenn said it, not me'.

    Al this past talk about holding Obama's feet to the fire seems like, well, Obama talking. Know what I mean?


    It is angering to no end... (5.00 / 13) (#116)
    by AX10 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:33:15 PM EST
    to see these tools cover for Obama when all the while they accused Hillary of being "manipulative" and "decietful".  Now that their guy is CLEARLY doing what they accused HRC of, we have every excuse in the world being made.

    It will be impossible for (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:05:44 PM EST
    Obama to respect succubus type supporters.  If you act that you are going to be seen as contemtuous by your leader. Especially since OBama has the press and corps on his side.

    I have defended HRC's Iraq authorization vote (none / 0) (#187)
    by magnetics on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:44:48 PM EST
    on the grounds that she went along because very few people were willing to take a principled stand on this.  And the intelligence (so called) was off the wall: at one point we were warned that Iraq could bomb NYC with a remotely guided drone aircraft.  I kid you not.

    Nonetheless, I defended her for being a politician; and if I myself was not roundly thrashed for it, others were who did.

    Look where it got us.

    Plus an off topic  stomach discomfort alert:  the Obama campaign is planning to unleash 'persuasion squads' so called, in recalcitrant neighborhoods.  Sheesh!


    It's the Bush (5.00 / 9) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:57:27 PM EST
    syndrome. The left has it just as the right is losing it. Perhaps it's an infectious disease that moves around.

    It's the type of people moving (none / 0) (#205)
    by splashy on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:57:55 PM EST
    Around. They are the ones that cheer lead regardless of what the leaders do. Quite a few have abandoned the Repubs because they have lost some of their power, and jumped on the Obama bandwagon because they think he will have power.

    He's O'Rielly (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by mrjerbub on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:39:32 PM EST
    with giant "manscaped" eyebrows.

    he's our o'Reilly. (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:55:41 PM EST
    O'bermann? (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by suki on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:27:47 PM EST
    Except O'Reilly gets better ratings (5.00 / 12) (#41)
    by davnee on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:17:08 PM EST
    and can actually conduct a credible interview.  Must be tough for KO to be consistently pwned by somebody as craptastic as O'Reilly.  My heart bleeds.

    O'Reilly also confronts people F2F... (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:53:04 PM EST
    ...as he did in his interview with Clinton, while Olbermann was a coward who didn't challenge her until after he was done interviewing her, and she had no way to respond.

    I just loved how (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Leisa on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:20:35 PM EST
    he kept repeating what a defender of Bill he was back in the day the last time he interviewed Hillary...

    OMHO, KO is unhinged and his credibility is zero.  He rants and drools way too much to be taken seriously.  I believe this man does not deserve airtime.


    Totally unhinged (5.00 / 4) (#172)
    by lmv on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:21:46 PM EST
    His coworkers at ESPN said in the New Yorker piece that he didn't burn bridges, he napalmed them.

    He's so narcissistic, that he says he has warehouses full of every show he's ever done.  (He admitted this on the air one night.  And added that he watches the tape of his show when he gets home.)  

    We took him off our TiVo months ago.  Sure, you can call it hypocritical that we watched him bash Bush.  His was the only show doing so, sadly, at the time.  And, yes, it took his overt sexist rants against Hillary for us to get fed up with him.  At least we stopped watching.

    Now, when will the internets start examining Tweety's issues?  (Haven't watched him since NH.)


    Hmm. (none / 0) (#178)
    by shoephone on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:45:22 PM EST
    I don't recall O'Reilly ever conducting anything close to a credible interview. He always seems to be screaming over his interviewee, which makes it more like a monologue than a dialogue.

    Hillary interview (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by lmv on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:04:04 PM EST
    You couldn't have seen his interview with HRC.  

    I was really impressed with O'Reilly.  And don't think that didn't bother me!  But, I have to give credit where it's due.

    Strangely, he was very respectful towards her.  He definitely asked her tough questions but he didn't steamroller over her like he does to most of his guests.  

    HRC did great.  She is so smart.  If only ...  


    Whether we want it or not, that's what we got (5.00 / 18) (#3)
    by goldberry on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:40:58 PM EST
    Some of us caught on back in late January.  Not that it will make any difference now.  For many of the Obama supporters, the conditioning is complete and long since over.  
    How did it ever happen?  Bob Altemeyer will have to pass this question onto his graduate assistants.  Hopefully, it won't take another 40 years to figure it out.

    I find the ferocity (5.00 / 13) (#8)
    by vigkat on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:45:45 PM EST
    of his devotion to Obama downright scary.

    It is scary and his superiors need to keep (5.00 / 11) (#34)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:10:44 PM EST
    it in check....I suppose what he does in his off time is his business.  I watched him for many months and then noticed his complete turnaround to being in the tank for obama.  What scares me as how KO and many obama followers make excuses for every wrong thing he does...no questions asked.

    Olbermann the ferocious. (5.00 / 10) (#61)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:35:41 PM EST
    He has to be ferociously for Obama to cover up the fact that all he really cared about was his nutty sick inverted perverse sadistic all-consuming obsession with Hillary Clinton.

    Once you're THAT far out on the limb ... (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:48:12 PM EST
    ... there's really no point looking back.

    we are sorta stuck with it though. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:57:01 PM EST
    It's like complaining about a bad General. You just have to hope they win or get sacked quickly once the lack of courage or talent becomes self evident.

    What does this remind me of? (5.00 / 14) (#27)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:04:07 PM EST
    "We are sorta stuck with it though.  It's like complaining about a bad general."

    Sounds like a lot of Republicans who stuck with Bush after WMDs were not found, after Abu Ghraib, after Katrina.


    well yeah (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:12:35 PM EST
    C'est la Vie.

    more aptly (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Ovah on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:08:17 PM EST

    c'est la guerre

    Even more aptly (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Nadai on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:38:18 PM EST
    C'est ridicule.

    c'est la merde (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:49:35 PM EST
    Well, for now he's winning (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:13:37 PM EST
    and people like winners.

    If he thinks he is winning he's losing. (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:28:36 PM EST
    I question whether Obama is "winning" and especially whether he wins in November.

    phat book deal (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:51:22 PM EST
    We're only in June (none / 0) (#171)
    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:18:57 PM EST
    As we've seen thus far this year, conventional wisdom in campaigns can fail.  And political situations can change quickly.  

    Obama is helped though by the fact that the media still worships him.  If he can maintain this same level of worship through till election day and the economy continues to tank, he may very well win.  


    He's winning, but (none / 0) (#202)
    by mg7505 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:07:42 PM EST
    we're losing. That's politics. The only question is which candidate makes us lose more.

    He's winning.... (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:31:33 PM EST
    But what is he winning?

    Most people don't like all winners, because (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by DeborahNC on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:18:03 PM EST
    there's almost always an alternative view than that held by the "winner." In this case, I want a president who is willing to stand up for the civil liberties of the country's citizens.

    You go (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:29:03 PM EST
    into the election with the candidate you have not necessarily the best one or the one you wanted.

    Isn't that (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by mrjerbub on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:39:42 PM EST
    a  "Rummyism"?  ;p

    Rummy was right on that score (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:49:02 PM EST
    although you clearly didn't need to invade Iraq.  So that political point sorta overrides technical questions about military capability.

    Olbermann (5.00 / 13) (#4)
    by vigkat on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:42:39 PM EST
    A hack and a tool; nothing more, nothing less.  A pompous and arrogant man, incapable of true self-reflection.  I no longer watch him, and wonder why I ever did.

    Olberman seems to suffer from pathological (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by DeborahNC on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:14:00 PM EST
    narcissism. Seriously. From his perspective, he is always right, despite evidence to the contrary. If he changes his position on an issue, one that directly contradicts a former position, then in his view, everyone should now accept his new position as the correct and acceptable one. Yet, if someone else (not in agreement with him) did this, s/he would be harshly criticized. It would be amusing if it weren't such a serious problem.

    I really don't understand how viewers can think that he is a credible source of "news." There is so much commentary that masquerades as news in multiple and diverse media sources in the US that is has become really disturbing to me.

    Olbermann is just part of the problem. Unfortunately, he has a broad public forum and uses it to broadcast his rants.


    His use of Neville Chamberlain (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:24:56 PM EST
    has always bugged me.   It was very ideosyncratic theorizing about Neville being arrogant and secretive--rather than bargaining from a weak position.

    Or maybe... (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Lou Grinzo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:59:21 PM EST
    ...you'd develop the condition KO has.  The recent New Yorker profile said that some time ago he was running into a subway car and banged his head.  Ever since, he can't drive more than about 15MPH or he loses his depth perception.

    [insert painful irony joke here]


    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Lil on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:28:03 PM EST
    so happy I gave up on him a long time ago. After a short withdrawal period, I'm living a much happier life.

    Man, my wife and (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by mikeyleigh on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:46:04 PM EST
    I didn't even have withdrawal pains.  We've been KO free for four months now.

    Yes, (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Lil on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:06:22 PM EST
    and TalkLeft is like my 12-step group.

    Same here -- I was surprised (none / 0) (#184)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:28:37 PM EST
    as we had been KO regulars in this house.  But we looked at each other at a certain point -- some time ago, 'way before primary season, we found we turned it off earlier and earlier . . . and then I just stopped coming in to join the spouse for it, with no withdrawal at all on my part.  And then a while later, the spouse said that I had awakened him to realizing he had better things to do with that hour.

    I've been enjoying History Channel, National Geographic Channel, some good CDs and books. . . .


    My very conservative friend (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:32:40 PM EST
    ... urged me, about a year ago, to think about how occasionally irrational KO was.

    I hate to admit it, but he had a point. (And we're still friends.)

    This isn't a new thing. It's just that I liked his rants against Bush.


    Well, I'm sure he'd love to do (5.00 / 10) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:43:04 PM EST
    a special comment on Obama, but, you know, time constraints, people to see, places to go. And that segment he has to do on lindsay lohan.

    I'm gonna have to pull out my wading boots (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by kmblue on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:43:10 PM EST
    to make it to November.  

    Blind ambition + denial =
    "let the rationalizations begin!"

    Rationalizations r'us (5.00 / 15) (#24)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:02:25 PM EST
    Crazy Howard's bargain basement DNC firesale.  Now with added Evangelists.

    ROTFLMAO! (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:30:12 PM EST
    That comment (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:54:58 PM EST
    caused a mess on my screen.  Bad, bad Salo.:-)

    Too funny! (none / 0) (#204)
    by mg7505 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:11:10 PM EST
    I could use a new job...maybe Crazy Howard's is hiring? Do you have to be a member of The Joshua Generation?

    Well (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:49:01 PM EST
    The Beltway media is the Beltway media.

    The only way for a Democrat to be praised as strong is by standing up to the rabid left-wing hordes and supporting the GOP agenda.

    MSNBC is treading a well-worn path here.

    I'm not sure how that really relates (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:49:46 PM EST
    to Greenwald's complaint.

    Really? (5.00 / 10) (#25)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:02:51 PM EST
    You think Greenwald is only talking about the hypocrisy, and not the bizarre claim that Obama is somehow being "strong" by capitulating to the GOP?  I disagree.

    If I were obama i'd (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:04:20 PM EST
    cut my ties with Dkos Pronto.

    Actually, he did that years ago (4.76 / 13) (#76)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:56:06 PM EST
    But the boyz at DKos just haven't caught on yet.  Shhhhhh.

    oh yes the famous roberts comment. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:04:10 PM EST
    Who was it that called Obama an Idiot btw?  

    Whothehell is "hairspray" (none / 0) (#197)
    by creeper on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:16:51 AM EST
    and why is (s)he laying a 2 on this comment?

    Ok, that does make sense (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:12:51 PM EST
    I just didn't see what you were driving at.

    Greenwald is reality-based (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by kmblue on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:53:19 PM EST
    I've read him for years.  I'll have to venture into his comment section--I'm sure daring to question Obama and Keithie has drawn fire.

    That's true and. . . (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:59:40 PM EST
    although I don't read Greenwald directly, when I see  him quoted he often makes good sense.

    Of course, a few months or a year ago, everyone was saying the same thing about Olbermann as you're now saying about Greenwald.  I guess it just depends on whose candidate is getting Gored.


    Who's everyone? (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by pie on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:01:47 PM EST
    Greenwald is more consistent than me. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:03:20 PM EST
    He's a bit pedantic at times but he's well worth the time to read.

    It's unbelievable (5.00 / 9) (#21)
    by pie on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:01:01 PM EST
    that those who criticized Bush daily, condemned and ridiculed his supporters, and cheered Keith for speaking out have now themselves turned into the very people they despised...

    all without a second's hesitation.  It's sad and scary at the same time.


    It's magic, (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by kmblue on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:06:14 PM EST

    A wave of the wand and presto!
    Cowering becomes a clever strategy.


    In the blink of an eye (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by vigkat on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:06:25 PM EST
    I think it's being described as "the pivot," or "pivoting."  All those in the know realize the importance of a well-executed pivot.  It's all the rage; like a new dance step.  Doing the pivot.

    They might like the pivot now, but remember (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by DeborahNC on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:05:08 PM EST
    the pivot can also be made in the opposite direction. (I'm thinking basketball.) People should be careful with their terminology, because the next "pivot" might be in an unacceptable direction and will they continue to acclaim the pivot then?

    Irrespective of the the direction, a pivot is still a pivot--at least when I played basketball.
    And as we all know, we've seen many political pivots in the recent past, enough to make me feel like I've been in (or at least watching) the NCAA finals for years now. And sadly, both the Democrats and Republican are equal opportunity pivoters--maybe the Democrats even more, since Republican, of late, seem to be in a holding pattern.


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by vigkat on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:31:05 PM EST
    The direction of the pivot cannot always be predicted.

    Guys he plays hoops with say he's got ... (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:01:20 PM EST
    ... a wicked crossover move.

    Too Funny! (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by This from a broad on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:57:32 PM EST
    It's too funny!  I mean really ... it's too funny!  (I have to go and have a good cry now).

    cowering before the right = (5.00 / 10) (#18)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:58:46 PM EST
    Bravely standing up to the left . I love that Greenwald highlighted that. He always nails it.

    lol. (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:10:29 PM EST
    standing up to the left?  I see no left wing in the US. It's projected simulacra.

    The Holodeck Left (5.00 / 6) (#129)
    by Lou Grinzo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:00:36 PM EST
    This is a sign of the times. (5.00 / 17) (#20)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:00:51 PM EST
    The same is happening/has happened at Daily Kos, The Hufffington Post, TPM, and AmericaBlog, to name a few.

    Obama can do no wrong (or a wrong deserving of strong criticism) for these people, just as George W. Bush could do no wrong for Republicans.

    The Democratic dittoism, particularly at the left blogs, at Air America, and on MSNBC, makes me sick.

    Remember when leftwing blogs (5.00 / 12) (#32)
    by kmblue on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:09:27 PM EST
    said about Mister Bush "Up is down, right is left..."

    Talk about deja vu.


    The reality-based community (Blogosphere 1.0) (5.00 / 12) (#35)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:11:07 PM EST
    breathed its last breath around December 2007.

    R.I.P. Blogosphere 1.0.


    yep kmblue....deja vu all over again!! (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:17:20 PM EST
    Take a look (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:14:33 PM EST
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:19:32 PM EST
    Bowers seems to have a reasonable point, no?

    Now, instead of those annoying arguments that represented a 180 degree shift from where the majority of the blogosphere was just one year ago, the prevailing sentiment is "yeah, FISA shows that Obama isn't that great, but let's work to elect him anyway." There have been at least 50 diaries on Daily Kos over the last week expressing this sentiment. While it isn't an invigorating message, it is at least one that, as a progressive, I have grown used to being thrown at me for the last decade or so. It feels familiar, and like the long awaited removal of the bullsh*t blinders has finally taken place.

    Well, yeah, but where was he last month? (5.00 / 8) (#48)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:24:05 PM EST
    or the month before that?

    Heh (5.00 / 16) (#54)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:29:38 PM EST
    I dunno, maybe they figure it's bad for business to insult the readership.  Jerome Armstrong is about the only one who spoke out directly about the Kool-Aid in his own comment section, and he took a ton of guff for it, too.

    The question of how progressives can persuade the Democratic Party to show more spine is a challenging one.  It doesn't help if people adopt the Olbermann approach of simply relabelling cowardice as courage.

    I confess that I'm sort of taking Bowers' word for it regarding the general tone of things at the orange place.  From where I sit, I still see quite a bit of "gosh, maybe he'll work really hard to remove immunity once the election is over!"


    He admits the Kool Aid has been flowing since (5.00 / 10) (#65)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:40:28 PM EST
    late January.

    I don't recall Bowers doing much about it.  I don't recall anyone else bemoaning the scores of progressives who were essentially run off of Daily Kos and other blogs, for no greater sin than supporting Hillary.

    These guys are a bunch of hypocrites.


    The social dems will return (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:52:02 PM EST
    and bury the bums if Obama doesn't win.

    Don't you know that all Hillary supporters (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:31:04 PM EST
    are racist?  And so is anyone who would dream of not voting for Obama in the general.  It's immoral to not vote for Obama!  

    More likely than not, I will vote for Obama but this "you're a racist if you don't support Obama" sets a rather dangerous precedent.  

    I just quit blogging at Daily Kos and left without any fanfare.  It's pointless to argue with that group.  They are into group think and screaming.  I admit I did that on occasion participated in the screaming rants but I'm older now and a little less crazy.  


    I'm another refugee (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:48:25 AM EST
    I quit after Markos frontpaged his "darkened" photo accusations.  For months I had endured all manner of name calling by the Hate Hillary set and finally decided that my self-respect demanded that I leave.

    MyDD has now become infested with some of the same Obama Thought Police and I will need to get out of there as well.  I had the audacity to mention that Obama has a "thin resume" and was called a racist and a traitor.  Never mind that I plan to vote for him anyway.  


    Now computer monitor gamma is racist?!? (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:13:59 AM EST
    That ginned-up outrage was inexcusable for a self-defined, allegedly "reality first" club stepping up to the trough as NuSkool kingmakers in the digital age.

    I work in multi-media with other specialists and work off a portable drive plugged into five different monitors. Everyone on my team keeps hard copy color wheels to tweak displays of our workto match because monitor settings fluctuate.

    Even two identical makes and models of a monitor at factory setting will display the same graphic differently.

    The collective madness was Delusional Digitalis. What is with people.

    (If it isn't apparent by now, Club Obama isn't interested in sharing the truth but in replacing RoveCo and PoliCoke with Axelrod and PoliPepsi. Not my preferred suds.)


    Me too... (none / 0) (#188)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:45:26 PM EST
    quit dkos.  Strange place now. I remember reading some of your comments.

    KO has now posted there and ragged a bit on Glen and spun some more.  Now he is getting his ego stroked and so he will be good for a while.


    Me too... (none / 0) (#189)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:45:41 PM EST
    quit dkos.  Strange place now. I remember reading some of your comments.

    KO has now posted there and ragged a bit on Glen and spun some more.  Now he is getting his ego stroked and so he will be good for a while.


    Am I a 'typical white person' (?) per Obie's own (none / 0) (#200)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:41:12 AM EST
    ... phrase, which he used negatively and condescendingly to describe his own grandmother and for which he was given a pass by cowering media.

    They allow themselves be held hostage by impending charges of racism if they slightly question Obama's words and actions that are on the public record.

    They won't even stop to question the mindset and integrity of a someone who's main selling point is Unity he he cavalierly dumps on someone who raised him (and sent him to a great prep school) that way.

    Using the handy nutcracker:lawn jockey ratio, it's obvious that it was open season to subject HRC to a historically unprecedented torrent of bigotry which by far exceeded -- in the mainstream -- what Obama has had during the campaign.

    Neither is right nor should be condoned, yet the former appeared routinely and even increased after candidate and campaign were directly ask to "respond" to "some" people's "belief" that it was occurring.


    As Picasso (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:53:03 PM EST
    was fond of saying, something new and good is rarely recognized in it's own time.  Howvere Picasso did make a good living from his art while he was alive.

    I love that Picasso story about how he paid for .. (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:58:30 AM EST
    ... everything, even a cup of coffee, by cheque after he became famous. He knew no one would cash it because s/he'd want to hold onto his signature.

    Brilliant man.

    Some guys try to pick up girls and get called a@@ho'
    This never happened to Pablo Picasso

    Jonathan Richman and the Modern Lovers

    Click over for his seminal punk bio.

    Since Friday's cat and music day in the blogosphere, I'm sending this musical SHOUTOUT and putting some money* in the Talk Left jukebox to offsent the great work the moderators, proptrietrix and barkeep -- BTD -- do to clean up after the likes of me.

    * what's good, five bux a tune? Three for ten? I'd be happy to put up a separate diary proposing a model for Friday fun(d) raising this way, perhaps in open threads so I hope one of the pezzanovante let me know.


    Media legitimization theory at work here (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:00:05 PM EST
    as these gutless wonders like Bowers had to wait for the msm to do so first.  Look back and see.

    So much for the brave new blogzworld.  Pffffft.


    Because. . . (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:18:09 PM EST
    But I have to wonder why it's taken so long for the subject to come up outside of places like TalkLeft.

    Whatever else he was before, Olbermann didn't become a hypocrite until he abandoned his strongly held anti-immunity position in favor of sycophancy.


    Amen to those words! (5.00 / 11) (#40)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:16:57 PM EST
    I've been away on vacation for a few weeks and it's amazing to witness what has happened on the leftie blogs.  Even the faintest word of criticism for Our Dear Presumptive Nominee is instantly shouted down with cries of "racist" or "traitor."   I was called both of those today for simply mentioning that Obama has a thin resume.

    All along I've said that I'm planning to vote for Obama because McCain is totally unacceptable.  After today, I'm thinking that I will have to abandon the blogs for the duration of this campaign.  Otherwise, I'm afraid I will be pushed over the edge and decide not to vote at all.  And that would not be right.


    it'll infect teh general population... (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:26:39 PM EST
    ...and you'll see a few Auto da Fe's before november.

    Obamabots know they've been conned (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by Josey on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:26:29 PM EST
    And so, they're doing what Bushies did in 2004 when they learned Bush had duped them on the war - they dug in deeper and worshipped Bush more.

    The more I study Obama (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:08:08 PM EST
    The more I see him as basically a Democratic and black version of Bush.  That's why I really don't like him.  

    Obama -"standing up to the left"... (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:22:04 PM EST
    How brave.

    "Standing up to the left".

    Everybody is standing up to the left -
    and nobody is representing our point of view.

    Why pretend otherwise?

    When I hear Kucinich  speak, I feel I am listening to a democrat.
    The same with Feingold. It is not only the content, but the straightforward manner with which they speak.

    The rest of them, I don't know what they're talking about or where they stand on anything.

    Feingold is more complex (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:05:55 PM EST
    and I consider him a good cop in a Gcop Bcop routine.  Kucinich is a cantankerous, but he'd fit easily into labour or the German SPD.

    I think there are quite a few of us (5.00 / 11) (#46)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:22:47 PM EST
    who would like to seek refuge from the kind of mind control that is being practiced on the left these days.   Frankly, I find it pretty scary.

    Clown (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by suki on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:23:31 PM EST
    A big one who every night paints his face, dons his huge, red bulbous nose, and straps on his over-sized Bozo shoes.
    Are you listening SNL... Jon.... Colbert?
    Please, this is too good to pass up.

    too much (4.75 / 4) (#59)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:33:35 PM EST
    demographic overlap.  Skewering olbrrman would be like jon and Stephen telling 90% of their audience that theyre stupid for watching okvrrman.

    A girl can dream, can't she? (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by suki on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:44:40 PM EST
    yes (5.00 / 13) (#105)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:24:06 PM EST
    Just not of  being president.

    He's having to prompt them into laughing (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:28:00 PM EST
    about/at Obama.  Frightening really.  Bob Robert's meet the Young Democrats!

    i can see obama's foot (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:32:54 PM EST

    Thank You BTD (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by IzikLA on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:24:32 PM EST
    For supporting Obama with a rational head and for skewering the people like Olbermann who deserve it.

    I support Obama now as a Democrat who could never vote for a Republican, but I still have serious problems with his campaign and even more serious problems with the media's treatment of it.  Anything we can do to hold them accountable should be done, so I commend you for continuing to do just that.

    From the same article BTD linked (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by Dave B on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:26:19 PM EST
    A quote from Russ Finegold:

    It's the latest chapter of running for cover when the Administration tries to intimidate Democrats on national security issues. It's the most embarrassing failure of the Democrats I've seen since 2006, other than the failure to vote to end the Iraq War. . . . It's letting George Bush and Dick Cheney have their way even though they're that unpopular and on their way out. It's really incredible.

    I wonder how Finegold feels about his support of Obama now...

    Thought the same thing ... (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by lmv on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:06:30 PM EST
    I've been wondering if the Reid/Pelosi/Dean strategy had been to make the Republicans look as bad as possible so they could ride in and save the country.

    Guess not.  They're just spineless.  

    Good for Feingold to see the light again.


    Complicity is not spinelessness (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by hookfan on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:20:25 PM EST
    About the way I felt about supporting Russ (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:22:13 PM EST
    and then watching him vote for Ashcroft and Roberts.

    Feingold gets to have feet of clay in his home state, where we've watched him for decades -- he is the definition of a maverick, and he gets things more right than wrong from what seems to simply be naivete.  

    But when he's wrong, he's very wrong.  And this time was another case.


    I don't like that statement (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:30:42 PM EST
    what is feingold captain universe?

    He's just being a pol.


    I imagine Feingold. . . (none / 0) (#169)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:14:13 PM EST
    has a broader view of Presidential politics, and Obama, than any single issue.

    After all, a heck of a lot of people here (including me) voted for Clinton, but I doubt any of us were particularly thrilled with her vote on the AUMF.  Show me someone who agrees with me 100% of the time and I'll show you someone I wouldn't trust as far as I can throw myself.


    Olberman (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:29:56 PM EST
    Fell so in love with the sound of his own voice and the adulation of his admirers that he decided that he was the story, not the other way around.

    Well, they all bet (5.00 / 8) (#58)
    by kmblue on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:32:14 PM EST
    on Obama.  I'm talking about the media and the Democratic party.  Everything--reputations, cash, and the quest for power--is riding on the choice they made.

    As a Hillary supporter, I'm constantly being told "I'll get over it" and "I have nowhere else to go."

    Seems to me that the same can be said of those supporting Obama.  

    That's how Bill won (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by lmv on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:15:55 PM EST
    Bill won by running in the center.  He knew the left had nowhere else to go.  And the left got mad, took it out on his wife, and rallied behind their True One.  They got played.  Ooops.

    If I were still a Dem, I'd be pretty upset ...


    The thing (5.00 / 6) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:04:47 PM EST
    is though you knew what you were getting with Bill. Obama sold them a bill of goods that they are still buying into.

    Maybe its the only way we could do it (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by blogtopus on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:35:36 PM EST
    If I recall, a few years ago we were talking about how in order for an African American to get elected POTUS, he / she would have to be conservative enough to get a certain population past their racial insecurities.

    I just now woke up to what Obama is; he is the realization of a dream; an extremely cynical and pragmatic one, but many of us thought it might have to happen this way*.

    Maybe we need to have Con woman in the WH before a Lib woman, no? I hope not, but look what's happening now.

    *of course, that was before the US was screwed beyond belief (and possibly repair), and now is not the time for a newbie, no matter how historical.

    it'll be some type of maggie thatcher. (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:30:37 PM EST
    Palin is a good candidate for that if she so chose.

    Obama is far to the left. . . (none / 0) (#166)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:11:14 PM EST
    of the kind of person I think a lot of intelligent commenters would have thought would have a chance of being the first black President.

    Thanks for posting this, BTD (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:43:37 PM EST
    Greenwald's observations are right on the mark--and important. They need all the exposure they can get.

    I only hope that perhaps some of these "newsfotainers" like Olbermann and Tweety will begin to consider their responsibility to report on the issues and the facts regarding them, not to slant their commentaries for their heroes and against their villains. They have power--far more than they should--to shape and reinforce public opinion. They should exercise it responsibly and with something approaching journalistic ethics and check themselves for bias.

    Otherwise, Olbermann's pecking at O'Reilly is just like a parakeet fighting with his own reflection in a mirror.

    Where have you been all of these years? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:57:23 PM EST
    They're all yellow journalists, they're sensationalists.  Typically conservative.  And between their salaries and oversaturation in Washington, completely out of touch.

     FOX is by far the worst offender, but it is just a propoganda outlet.  MSNBC and CNN are just sensationalistic outlets.  Rather difficult to watch with the scrolling text, IMO.  Consider it the MTVization of cable news.

     If it took an unflattering portrait of Senator Clinton in a primary for people to see that, well...I'd say it was apparent for years, myself.  Although I must admit the attacks by pro-Clinton forces on the NY Times was something to behold...they're the best there is out there.

     This crap was never "journalism," though.  This was always infotainment.  The talking heads are hardly hard-hitting, intrepid reporters.

     Today, I think we call that "fiction."


    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:10:22 PM EST
    I'm not sure if it was their stellar coverage during the pre-war period or their inclusion of columnists like Maureen Dowd on the editorial page that made the NYT off-limits to attacks from the progressive side, but to be perfectly honest, attacks on the journalistic practices of the NYT were quite common long before this primary.

    No argument... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:22:12 PM EST
    ...about Judith Miller.

     Dowd is a completely different matter.

     But of the corporate media, I'd be hard pressed to find a better example.


    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:33:18 PM EST
    I don't agree with your reduction of the problem to one person who doesn't work there any more, but we're getting too OT here.

    I can not speak for the commenter (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:10:55 PM EST
    But I know where I have been for the past decade at least on Media criticism.

    At least Fox is overt about it (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:28:58 PM EST
    MSNBC made it look like centrists loved Bush.

    To sum up (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:43:59 PM EST
    What you believe is apparent about Clinton was only made aparrent to others by people who excel at the art of fiction.

    I agree with that.


    Read carefully (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:47:48 PM EST
    That's not what I said.  That comment wasn't about Clinton at all, it was what was apparent about the media.

    to re-sum up (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:58:02 PM EST
    an unfavorable opinion of Clinton and a favorable opinion of obama exists because of people who excel at the art of fiction.

    Sorry.  That's the conclusion I come to.

    Most of us knew the media was a joke before they started lying about Clinton.

    Sorry about reading too much into your comment.


    I've been around all these years ;-) (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by kempis on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:50:48 PM EST
    That's why I call Olbermann and Tweety "infotainers" and not journalists.

    While (4.80 / 5) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:08:58 PM EST
    I agree with what you said mostly I have to say that during the primary Fox was not the worst. I'm not saying their great or anything but at least they weren't implying that Hillary was a wannabe murderess like MSNBC and CNN. And the sexist comments happened to a much less degree than on the other channels.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:32:04 PM EST
    The FOXies had gotten their Clinton is a murderess you-know-what out of their system in the 90s.  2008 was a time for Muslim and terrorist innuendo.  

     Please.  Listening to defenses of FOX from "liberals" on this site is sickening.  FOX is the worst.


    they are pretty aweful (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:44:34 PM EST
    but they ARE OVERTLY AWEFUL.

    Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:14:12 PM EST
    but Fox is not the worst unfortunately. I would have agreed with you at one time but I think that's pretty much been proven untrue over the last few months. They all are bad but the overt whoring for Obama and the sexist trashing of women on MSNBC tops them all. Absolutely no objective critical analysis came from them at all. Of course, now their credibiilty is more damaged than even Fox's.

    you are 100% correct (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by kenosharick on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:52:58 PM EST
    I do not like FOX by any means, but what MSNBC has become is sad, pathetic, and not a news channel by any stretch of the imagination.

    Let me put (5.00 / 5) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:15:47 PM EST
    it this way: MSNBC is for Obama what Fox was for Bush in 2004. Do you see where I'm coming from?

    Obama (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:45:37 PM EST
    Will totally distance himself from Olberman and the progressive blogs. They both served their purpose to get him in the door as a fresh new face. Now he'll see them as a liability. It wouldn't do for him to associate with that "Move On.Org" crowd. And Obama has shown consistantly that nothing and no one is going to get in his way.

    Was he ever "close" to the blogs? (5.00 / 11) (#77)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:56:32 PM EST
    He is the only candidate who did ZERO outreach on the blogs during this primary.  

    Zero, zip, zilch, nada.

    lol - they never seemed to notice either.  Very strange.


    his internet team was far more sophistcated (5.00 / 6) (#91)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:09:40 PM EST
    than either Edwards of Clinton's team.

    They used the sites to get their nominee in very skillful ways. You do recall the almost professional methodology of AdamB, Clonecone, Geekesque, IBS, Elise etc?


    Sock puppetry doesn't count. imo n/t (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:24:51 PM EST
    heh n/t (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:01:23 PM EST
    In a strange way (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by vigkat on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:26:12 PM EST
    That aloofness and hard-to-get air of his may have something to do with it.  He is the BMOC, and they want to run with the popular crowd.  It really does seem to be that ridiculously simple at times.

    Astroturfing is more Axelrod's style, (5.00 / 9) (#120)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:41:37 PM EST
    rather than outreach (that's Daou and Hillary).

    I'm convinced that's what happened in part at Daily Kos, and at other blogs.  They went after Edwards people at the blogs when Edwards was the threat, and then they went after the Hillary folks.

    That's where I think it started, but it's not so relevant, because the standard-setters, the front pagers, and Kos all bought in to the demonization of Hillary and the systematic abuse of Kossacks who supported her.


    Because Kos brought his Hillary Hate (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by FemB4dem on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:34:38 PM EST
    with him into the Democratic Party.  These "recovering republican" types are a large part of what has gone wrong with what used to be my party.  They didn't recover enough, and they took over something they never understood or really cared about.  I know way too many of these types.  Some stopped drinking the kool-aid and have dropped Obama, the rest have now doubled their kool-aid dose and are KO junkies.

    What some of the more prominent (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:54:26 AM EST
    bloggers really bought into was the politics of personality as opposed to the politics of issues.  That's why they're all running around surprised by Obama's response to FISA.  They didn't really bother to make him commit to their agenda.  They went with "electability" as their guide - of course few of the participants there even understand the complexities of electability much less the electoral map - or how the senate works or how bills make their way through Congress - they spent their time talking about totally undefined hope and change...

    If you really analyze kos' political style - it was a perfect fit - he's prone to sophmoric and petty attacks on those he considers his rivals.  The McCain teeth thing was a perfect example.  Of all of the zillions of things that one could say about why McCain should not be our next president, kos chooses to attack the color of the guy's teeth - which BTW might be yellowed due to malnutrition and/or disease while he was in captivity as a POW OR the picture just could have been bad.

    The level of discourse over there has really fallen to a low that I don't think I ever anticipated it would.  But I guess that's what happens when a place hits the mainstream...


    Obama distanced himself a long time ago (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by Josey on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:35:49 PM EST
    >>>Obama will totally distance himself from Olberman and the progressive blogs

    from Leftie blogs, but they didn't realize it because they were focused on Obama's theme song - "beat the Beetch!"


    Josey, why do you keep posting here (2.00 / 0) (#154)
    by Newt on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:35:34 PM EST
    that Obama's theme was "beat the Beetch" when it was McCain who laughed at the question, "How do we beat the b!tch."

    You've posted this same message a few times.  Is there some quotation you have from Obama?


    Sorry , but McCain didnt "laugh" (none / 0) (#196)
    by northeast73 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:50:08 AM EST
    ....that was an uncomfortable..."well, gee I dont want to blast this woman for saying it but..." kind of laugh followed up with

    "I have great respect for her and wont run that kind of campaign"

    Next you'll tell me he wants 100 years of war in Iraq and to cancel all tax revenues.

    C'mon now....


    Obama's been down on the blogs. . . (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:08:52 PM EST
    since day one.  He did one post at Daily Kos and I guess he must have made the mistake of reading some of the responses.

    He's afraid of Armando. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:11:37 PM EST
    I'd be afraid of Armando... (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:40:24 PM EST
    ...if I had a blog (OMG I do)...

    ...come to think of it, she said, cleaning up her lines of reasoning...


    And this is the stuff that will help (5.00 / 8) (#74)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:54:40 PM EST
    to sink Obama's ship eventually.


    I can't count how many times this year that I have wanted to say to some Obama supporter, "Stop helping!  PLEASE."

    So when did Richard Cohen (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MarkL on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:05:33 PM EST
    start inhabiting Olbermann's body?
    I bet he likes the perks... Olbermann has a young girlfriend, right?

    No profanity (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:12:33 PM EST
    And not completely fair. Stoller and bowers were critical of Obama at times.

    Unevenly (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:14:37 PM EST
    and I think there's an implicit acceptance of that in this very post.

    He now finally feels comfortable to. . .do what? Say what he should have said before IMO.


    Oops, sorry. Ought to cut and paste (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:19:48 PM EST
    when quoting to make sure I don't put back in the bad and naughty vowel.

    As for "at times," not often enough.  Heck, wingnuts are critical of Bush about once a year, too.


    But the real point is that I don't think Stoller (5.00 / 6) (#118)
    by Joelarama on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:34:33 PM EST
    and Bowers spilt much ink pointing out the Kool Aid that was flowing on Olbermann and in the left blogosphere.

    It doesn't count as criticizing. . . (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:07:21 PM EST
    to say "Hey, I don't like Obama 'cause he's too nice to Hillary."

    Speaking Truth to Power (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by WakeLtd on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:09:50 PM EST
    Since the topic is,  or was, Olbermann:

    KO failed to "pivot" as a news commentator when Obama (obviously his preferred candidate) nailed down the Dem nomination. Senator Obama now has incredible potential power:  he is favored to be the next President. This is not the time to become squeamish about holding his feet to the fire. Frankly, Obama has welched on several promises that he at least suggested he was making.Pardon us if we thought he was being sincere. The past 10 days have been spent parsing his words on "public financing". Apparently, deep in the text one can find he never promised a thing. Yet it sure seem  ed he promised a lot.  FISA is even worse. I recall the word "filibuster". The point is that KO is not prepared, as a "journalist" (I know how silly that sounds about him), to compare the words that once were supposed to have mattered to the words of today. He is still stuck in some cheerleading role.

    Power+propaganda=? (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by lmv on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:48:47 PM EST
    Isn't this what scared us about Bush/FOX?

    Senator Obama now has incredible potential power:  he is favored to be the next President. This is not the time to become squeamish about holding his feet to the fire.

    And, when would be a good time to "hold his feet to the fire?"  


    Read the Post Again (none / 0) (#203)
    by creeper on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:08:54 PM EST
    The poster obviously believes NOW is the time to hold Obama's feet to the fire.

    "A foolish consistancy (5.00 / 7) (#135)
    by mkevinf on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:22:00 PM EST
    is the hobgoblin of small minds" is the actual quote from Emerson.  So, I suppose Oberbama considers that the oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States is foolish?

    This really isn't about the right or the left or the middle.  This is about unprincipled posing.

    "And they call me slick." - Bill Clinton re: Rick Lazio.

    Obama is tacking to the middle (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by WillBFair on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:02:11 PM EST
    to get elected; it's something else he learned from the Clintons. He's got their team's agenda (fiscal restraint, healthcare, green energy, bipartisanship, strategic economic stimulous); and he'll have Clinton folk in his administration. It's all great.
    I was just surprised when his worshipers swallowed the bull about new politics. They're totally naive, which is ok too because I don't fault people for ignorance. Their vicious insults and false accusations are another matter. I didn't think dems could act like that. Live and learn. But there's a cultural divide in the party now that I for one have no intention of crossing.
    As for Olberman, please. Corporate media has always attacked our best leaders. Since public opinion swung to our side, they've been doing damage control. Their first job was getting the Clintons out of the way, which KO helped do. Now they'll start chewing on Obama, and KO's weak defense will just be camoflage. How anyone could think KO is from the left is beyond my comprehension.

    Olbermann is a corporate tool (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:04:23 PM EST
    color me unshocked that he is cheerleading Obama. Are there really people here that are naive enough to believe that a candidate could get to 100 million without taking handouts from corporate America and that the handouts did not come with strings? My position is change is going to looka hell of alot by status quo.

    If we want a progressive agenda we are not going to get it easily. We will have to fight the media, who just so happens t be owned by folks quite happy withthe status quo.

    I have a certain appreciation for Glenn (5.00 / 8) (#150)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:07:20 PM EST
    nailing Olbermann, but I still have to wonder why it is coming now instead of months earlier, when it might have made some difference.  Olbermann is not a reporter or a journalist - he's an opinionist - but because he holds himself out as some great arbiter of truth, his feet need to be held just as firmly to the fire as the candidates' - something that could have been done by Glenn months ago.

    A lot of people seem to have just woken up and realized they dropped the ball, and for me it is more "too little, too late" than "better late than never" now that the lights are finally coming on; there is more sadness for me than satisfaction in Glenn's post.

    olberman has completed (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by cpinva on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:40:09 PM EST
    the transition (the "pupa" phase, if you will) into bill o'reilly's evil twin, "skippy" bill o'reilly. next thing you know, we'll be hearing about him using loofahs for things god never intended.

    it's sad really, when one starts to actually believe the BS that the PR dept. is throwing out there, just ask sen. obama about that.

    i do ask one small favor though: i be allowed to witness olberman's head explode, on the night of nov. 4th, when the networks call the election for john mccain.

    it's so little.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#157)
    by Newt on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:45:40 PM EST
    Not. A. Chance.

    you may well be right. (none / 0) (#194)
    by cpinva on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:36:30 AM EST
    Not. A. Chance.

    as the obama campaign continues to implode, at an accelerating rate, it may well reach terminal velocity by mid-july. this gives the SD's more than enough time to wake up, recognize their near-fatal mistake, and correct it by the convention.

    we would then have the pleasure of voting for pres. h. clinton in nov., who would handily trounce sen. mccain.


    What does Obama believe (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by glennmcgahee on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:40:55 PM EST
    Now you know why Obama has avoided his Senate duties. It was necessary to keep the net guys from knowing his true policies. They are whatever is convenient at the time to get the slap on the back from the "Washington Insiders".
    He can't get by vcting present in Congress.  Better to avoid voting on bille for now. He's hoping they adjourne soon.

    KO's not the only one (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:57:36 PM EST
    praising Obama for showing he will stand up to the "lefties".

    I read someone else commenting that this was showing that Obama wouldn't be influenced by the likes of MoveOn and the ACLU. (He was saying this was a good thing, mind.) I can't now recall where I read this, even though it was only yesterday...

    When I wrote to MoveOn when I asked to be removed from their email list, I asked rhetorically, how long they thought it would be until they, too, were thrown under the bus. Well, my rhetorical question has been answered. Welcome to life under the bus!

    I don't think Obama has ever. . . (none / 0) (#161)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:04:20 PM EST
    indicated he would be swayed by either the left wing of the Democratic Party or activists of any kind.  His few comments about places like dKos are generally quite negative.  It's one of the things I particularly like about him.

    Ha. You are such a trouble-maker. (none / 0) (#168)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:12:54 PM EST
    Some of us have had the good sense (none / 0) (#181)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:53:15 PM EST
    to realize that and to criticize him when appropriate.

    Yes (none / 0) (#192)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:32:52 PM EST
    I wonder if Obama realizes what a good job you're doing for him.

    No snark: I've said a lot how your open-eyed approach is much more likely to win me over than anyone asking me to let go of my rationality.

    I would have given him up long ago, except that you "keep me hanging on' [BARELY, these days!]


    To me, criticism should (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:08:51 PM EST
    center on Obama, not Olbermann et al.  Why is Obama able to skate on such an important issue, when polling shows the majority of people in the U.S. do not support telecomm immunity?

    He can skate cuz (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by kmblue on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:23:37 PM EST
    his supporters have no where else to go!

    (I'm sensing a theme here.)


    I absolutely agree (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:42:11 PM EST
    This is just giving Bush (using "Bush" as a shorthand for his administration) more of what he wants. I don't see Bush slowing down in his destruction of my country, its Constitution, and its moral compass.

    Is anyone paying attention to the saber-rattling with regard to Iran? That one scares the heck out of me. Conyers has said an attack would bring impeachment into play (paraphrasing from memory), but at that point it seems to me would be too late.

    There are still too many days left for more damage... we need, urgently, someone(s) to stand up and fight back!


    Greenwald called Olbermann out! (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by stefystef on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:50:49 PM EST
    I'm glad someone is finally scraping the veneer of Olbermann, his hypocrisy and the creation of the Obama News Network, formerly known as MSNBC.

    Someone said what I've been saying for months... the mask is slipping...

    And it ain't pretty under there.... (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:52:00 PM EST
    Why so much hate for Olbermann (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by daryl herbert on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:30:02 PM EST
    when the real villain is Barack Obama?

    Olbermann is just taking up the Unity(TM) schtick, like we're all supposed to do.

    Arguably He Is Consistent (4.57 / 7) (#7)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:44:57 PM EST
    At least in his love for Obama. And he is brave in that he sacrifices his integrity for loyalty aka sycophancy.

    Consistency, so it is said, (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by miriam on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:50:22 PM EST
    is the hobgoblin of small minds.  Olbermann will have to twist himself into a pretzel to praise  Obama's accelerating dash to the Right. Do these two men believe in anything at all--other than winning the next race?

    I don't think so (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by vigkat on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:02:08 PM EST
    And why should they?  Millions have bought into their "pragmatism," which appears to be the latest term currently making the rounds.  It's all about being pragmatic now.  It's the new cool thing.

    NOW they like pragmatic (5.00 / 14) (#31)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 05:08:55 PM EST
    Hillary is about the most pragmatic politician I've ever seen. They were not so complimentary of that quality a few weeks ago.

    She was straight up about it too. (5.00 / 10) (#88)
    by Salo on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 06:07:36 PM EST
    She ran her primary as she planned to run her general. No artifice at all. Every single policy she talked about she intended to follow through on.  She knew the press would do so many gotchas if she pandered to the left.

    Good point (4.91 / 12) (#10)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:47:17 PM EST
    He's consistently not credible.

    What integrity? (4.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kmblue on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 04:45:58 PM EST
    Sorry, I just had to do it. ;)

    heh (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:44:59 PM EST
    Big Tent discovers he is a hypocrite...


    Such powers of observation......