McCain Afraid Of Olbermann?

Jay Ackroyd asks a good question:

So, if Obama will face O'Reilly, doesn't that make McCain a wuss if he won't go on Olberman? KO may want to start asking that question.

A very fair question. I think O'Reilly and Olbermann are pretty comparable. If Obama is tough enough to take on O'Reilly, McCain should be tough enough to take on Olbermann.

Update [2008-9-7 22:23:30 by Big Tent Democrat]: NYTimes reporting reporting Olbermann and Matthews are out as anchors for political nights on MSNBC. Pretty funny. Apparently, NBC did not like being Fox Left.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Sunday Night Open Thread | MSNBC Dumps Olbermann and Matthews as Anchors for Debates, Election Night >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Why would McCain want to boost KO's ratings? (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by mogal on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:17:04 PM EST

    Divided Govt (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by mkb662 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:17:59 PM EST
    I fear that McCain has won this election my friend.  Obama will look back at this failure, as we all will, and realize that he could have been President had he been willing to swallow his ego and ask Sen. Clinton to be his political partner.  They would have won hands down.  Now, the best I can hope for is a route in Congress for the Democrats leading to a fillibuster proof majority to fight McCain on social issues, should he be so inclined to continue the conservative agenda.  This might be a good discussion item -- what would a divided govt with McCain and a fillibuster proof congress look like?

    Like absolutely nothing (3.00 / 0) (#17)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:25:17 PM EST
    McCain will be all military all the time (that's all he knows and all he is), will exploit terrorism/fear as much, if not more than, Bush.  And he won't do a thing for the working class families who are struggling.  He'll be like every other Republican, asking us to keep spending so the economy doesn't collapse (since that's all our economy is these days) while, like a mental deficient, doing nothing to change the paradigm of falling wages and disappearing jobs.  He IS the old car company executive too stupid to realize that if all the work of building cars is automated or shipped overseas, there won't be any wage earners left here to actually buy the cars.

    I knew automation (none / 0) (#106)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:31:40 AM EST
    was bad.  I sent this via snail mail.

    well (none / 0) (#87)
    by connecticut yankee on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:21:14 PM EST
    Defeat has been forcasted by commentators on this blog for a very long time.  I wish I knew where I could find these crystal ball outlets.

    McCain has won the election? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Detbriscoe on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:42:01 PM EST
    Fortunately, I disagree for two primary reasons:

    (1)Today's newspaper included a wonderful article which describes how working class women in Pennsylvania are not buying into the Palin mystique. They admire her for becoming the first woman on a presidential ticket, but they agree that, once you cut through the glamor, there's no substance there with regard to the problems that so many women face every day, e.g. child care, health insurance, the price of gas, home foreclosures, etc.

    IMHO, the great majority of female voters would be extremely foolish to vote for McCain/Palin or not vote at all.  Because, unless you're a hard right religious extremist or a multimillionaire, this ticket is simply not going to do what you hope the new administration will do.

    Plus, Ladies, please remember that Joe Biden was the author of the "Violence Against Women" Act.

    (2) Maybe the best indicator of all with regard to who holds the currently lead in the race for the White House is the odds which are posted on several legal sportsbook sites in the Caribbean.  The consensus was that Obama/McCain is a 2 to 1 favorite if you bet on the outcome of the election today. These magacompanies are not in the business of losing money.  I would pay a great deal of attention to whom they select as the favorite in the race as the next 60 days wear on.


    At first bush it seems like (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:23:59 PM EST
    Olbermann would obviously object to the comparison--though there is no legitimate reason to.

    But upon consideration, I think he'd probably delight in the publicity. Too bad making a fuss about it would prove that he isn't as big or influential as O'Reilly; he won't get the interview.

     (Actually, it will really just prove that the Republicans are smarter and more stubborn about this than the Democrats, but who cares? Olbermann is a doofus.)

    Of course he would object (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:25:38 PM EST
    Truth be told, sort of the point of my post.

    um, first *blush* (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:24:18 PM EST
    Freudian bush slip? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:26:26 PM EST
    Same Freudian slip (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by litigatormom on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:27:01 PM EST
    that Biden made in his acceptance speech!

    And Tom Ridge (none / 0) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:31:31 PM EST
    There appears to be plenty of Freudian Bush slip lately. Thank god it's almost over. Only 134 days (unless we get Ridge's choice of John Bush).

    Did you know that Jeb Bush's name (none / 0) (#40)
    by litigatormom on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:38:45 PM EST
    is really John Bush?  John Ellis Bush, to be exact, hence the nickname Jeb is derived from his initials.

    There was a point on one of the pundit panels (before the Palin pick was announced) that it was too bad that Jeb was being "denied" the presidency because of his brother's performance. But I think that if McCain is elected, Jeb may take a run at it, nothwithstanding that the Empress Palin will want it too.

    To avoid confusion between McCain and John E. Bush in the history books, I prefer to refer to McCain as "McBush," which nicely connotes an air of Shakespearean tragedy as well as horror.


    Fair question (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by ap in avl on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:25:06 PM EST
    Olbermann was a hero of mine in the "early days" when he challenged the Bush Administration in ways - and in a voice - others in the MSM never dared.

    Unfortunately, his conduct during the Democratic primary season quickly turned me off to him.  

    That "voice" that I once found to be so refreshing suddenly sounded like the left wing version of Bill O'Rielly.

    My bad.

    In my opinion, KO and Bill O are caricatures of each other.

    So, IMHO, it would only be appropriate for McCain to subject himself to the questioning of a left-wing blowhard if Obama is willing to subject himself to a right-wing blowhard.

    I know.....I'm taking up a lot of bandwidth to state the obvious.

    Olberman is a hack (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by SomewhatChunky on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:27:28 PM EST
    I disagree.  

    O'Reilly is far more professional than Olberman.  The Mighty KO's little side shows with Tweety and Joe S during the convention were an embarassment.

    I will never ever forget the rant he aired against Hillary a few months ago.  It was the most unprofessional thing I have ever seen on an supposed real network.  It reminded me of a drunk on a roll at the end of a bar.

    OReilly is conservative, tough, but fair with VIP guests.  When I've seen the big hitter Democrats on his show he asks tough direct questions, but is professional.  I've only seen part 1 of the Obama interview so far and I thought Obama did quite well.  The interview was also in a special setting which gave me the impression that Obama was an "important" guest.  I think it is smart for Obama, Hillary  and others to go on the show because they have caused several of my right leaning friends to see them in a different light.  Preaching to the choir wins you no new votes.

    McCain would be foolish to go on MSNBC.  They lack professionalism of any sort.  Especially Olberman who seems to have his own agenda.  I think they would try to embarrass him in a trick way or completely denigrate what he said after he left.    So far,  I think O'Reilly is asking Obama the questions the Republicans think should be answered.  In Part 1 (of 4 - see Mon-Wed this week for parts 2-4) Obama is answering them just fine.    After Obama had gone, O'Reilly even complemented him at the end of the show - said he was a very tough guy (I'm paraphrasing - whatever he said was clearly meant as a compliment).  Big difference between the two anchors IMHO.

    You must be joking (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:38:34 PM EST
    O'Reilly is the biggest hack in the business.

    A pathological liar and an idiot.


    Yes, but (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Jeannie on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:54:39 PM EST
    Olbermann is much much worse. The night he ranted that Hillary wanted Obama assassinated was the absolute end. The sharks were jumping him. Really ugly stuff.

    I remember (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Bluesage on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:43:01 PM EST
    When Hillary went on O'Reilly during the primary season and took loads of flak for that.  O'Reilly treated her with great respect and they had a good discussion.  You could see that O'Reilly was taken with her and they were both very professional.  KO is a nutcase and I hope McCain tells him to bugger off.  Anyone with a brain watched as KO morphed into a caricature of O'Reilly and actually made O'Reilly look more reasonable.

    In case I wasn't clear (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Bluesage on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:45:47 PM EST
    I also think O'Reilly is a nutcase but in this one instance with Hillary he acted reasonably.  KO has always let his ego overload in ass - kind of a pattern with him.  

    O'Reilly (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by supertroopers on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:28:51 PM EST
    Seriously, KO is a joke. I thought he was funny with his non-stop Bush-bashing but avoid him like the plague after how he and his co-hort Madcow trashed Hillary Clinton.

    O'Reilly may be a FOX-Conservative type but he has cred. as a conservative faux-fair-and-balanced.

    I've boycotted anything NBC because of how bad KO and his cronies are.

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:41:42 PM EST
    O'Reilly is a pure hack. He has no credibility with any one with a working brain in their head.

    Disagree (2.00 / 0) (#81)
    by supertroopers on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:12:35 PM EST
    KO is the hack. O'Reilly is the Rush L. of cable. At the top of the ratings and okay to watch even if you disagree with him.

    In that case (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:41:27 AM EST
    I guess if comparing Rush as your starting point of greatness then I must agree the you, because Rush is the biggest blowhard on radio. That would make O'Reilly the biggest blowhard of television.

    O'Reilly (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by delacarpa on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:47:59 PM EST
    I will always appreciated how he treated Hillary as everyone thought he would eat her alive. He didn't and it really turned out to be a good interview.

    I am not a body language person but Obama seemed to be uptight and he kind of broke a sweat during his interview.


    Why bother with KO... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jeffhas on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:33:12 PM EST
    All KO will do is try to 'gotcha'... and if that doesn't work (because he notoriously softballs those that really show up - to their face)... he'll just ridicule McCain when he's gone and cannot defend himself.

    Say what you will about O'Reilly (and he's a raving lunatic no doubt) he never treats the 'big guests' like that.

    MSNBC (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by delacarpa on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:41:38 PM EST
    was needing some class "big time" and they will get some of that with David Gregory. Olberman stayed home from the Republican Convention, Tweety looked like a wild man and so probably knew what was coming down the pipe. Feel Sorry, Not

    David Gregory is Classy? (2.00 / 0) (#64)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:48:27 PM EST
    He's a classic example of what is wrong with our Media.  Big stature, even handed tone of voice, but ultimately is he anything remotely akin to a watchdog?

    I've hear him say on numerous occasions that "national security is John McCain's strong suit."  Not, the public perception is that it is his strong suit, but that it simply is that way, that McCain is to be trusted and respected in that area.

    Compared to David Gregory, Olbermann really ought to be saying "Good night, and good luck."  


    My impression (none / 0) (#97)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:56:09 PM EST
    of David Gregory is that he lacks any originality, adds little if anything to the analysis; to me he has no gravitas, no perspective on the news and reports only what MSNBC is typically interested in finding out.  Where is Aaron Brown when you need him?

    He speaks French quite well (none / 0) (#102)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:00:17 AM EST
    and Emperor Chimpy mocked him for it in front of the entire world when Gregory asked Jacques Chirac a question in French at a joint news conference.

    Ever since that day, I've had respect for David Gregory.


    only in america (none / 0) (#109)
    by borisbor on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:19:34 AM EST
    where people are mocked for knowing more than one language. what a world.

    McCain afraid? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Lahdee on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:01:54 PM EST
    Nah, he just doesn't need Olbermann. There's no advantage to submitting to Olbermann's long winded, "disrespectful" questioning. Besides, it's more fun to beat NBC into submission.

    The short answer is no. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:35:57 PM EST
    So, if Obama will face O'Reilly, doesn't that make McCain a wuss if he won't go on Olberman?

    No, O'Reilly has a big audience, Olberman has a tiny audience.

    Candidates need to communicate with voters, not pundits.

    Just scrolling through these comments (1.25 / 4) (#41)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:38:56 PM EST
    You'd think that because of the way the Dem Primary went down, suddenly Fox News has more credibility than MSNBC, O'Reilly more credibility than Olbermann.  I suspect that many of the post-Primary hangers on also think that Hannity is more credible than Olbermann.  

    Outrage at how Fox led the media pimpage of lies during the runup to the Iraq War?  This is not nearly as outrageous, apparently, as Hillary Clinton's treatment by the media during the Primary.  This is the attitude being expressed by a plurality of TalkLeft commenters.

    Because Hillary Clinton lost, the world deserves a McCain/Palin Presidency.  Commenters seem to think that, too.   Sad.

    Not more credibility (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:39:50 PM EST
    About equal when it comes to Olbermann and Matthews.

    EXACTLY! (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by mogal on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:45:58 PM EST
    And your last graf (5.00 / 9) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:40:47 PM EST
    is pure idiocy.

    I would like to see good journalism, not hackery left or right.

    You seem to like hackery of the Left. I do not.

    I want journalism.


    Who do you think is left? (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:44:24 PM EST
    Honestly I agree completely, and I use to turn to certain sources for unbiased journalism. I am now finding that I am almost completely out of sources. Even NPR which once was a haven is starting to have reports that really seem biased. NYT and WashPo have fallen very far from their greatness, imo.

    And of course the internet was supposed to save us all.

    So who is left?


    actually... (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by kredwyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:42:34 PM EST
    as a lib who prefers to hear the news reported as news without the "How dare you" refrain, I stopped watching Olbermann back in January/February.

    Also...I stopped watching Matthews back during the 2004 GE when I realized that he hadn't read Malkin's book and just let her ramble on and on and on against Kerry.


    LOL. They are BOTH (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by rooge04 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:43:27 PM EST
    utterly lacking in credibility.

    Not because of "the way the primary went down," but because they all pretend to be newsmen when in fact everyone involved is a total hack.


    They are all pimps (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by ap in avl on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:46:01 PM EST
    Hannity, O'Reilly, Matthews, Olbermann et al.

    I'm just willing to call it as I see it on BOTH sides.

    A bloviating a$$hole is just that, regardless of the perspective.

    How I wish we had REAL journalists nowadays......


    I know FOX lies (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:46:25 PM EST
    For that reason I never watch any of their shows. Ever.  

    Until last fall I thought Matthews and Olbermann were kind of twisted, but not outright liars.  I know better now, and I rarely watch them either. I say rarely because I sometimes watch NBC's coverage  of speeches, etc.  Which Chris and Keith may not be anchoring anymore, because apparently their managment agrees with me.


    I gave CNN a second chance for the Convention (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:47:41 PM EST
    and they were OK.

    McCain/Palin (none / 0) (#86)
    by supertroopers on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:20:53 PM EST
    I'd say you are pretty close to the truth. Don't think for a second that McCain-Palin can't happen. The citizens of this country got duped with NAFTA, shoved into a war in Iraq because Bush's daddy didn't finish the job last time, and the Dems could quite easily mess up this election as well with McCain in the White House.

    It's quite plausible and preferable I understand from many in the Hillary camp that four years of McCain followed up by Hillary in the White House in 2012 is quite the possibility.


    I know it's true. (none / 0) (#90)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:27:06 PM EST
    And I know that a McCain/Palin victory is quite possible.

    Thus, the sadness.


    Only comparable on the surface (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:24:47 PM EST
    Olberman is far more intelligent than O'Reilly.

    An intelligent person going on O'Reilly usually leaves O'Reilly looking childish. O'Reilly tries to counteract his lack of insight on a subject by shouting or talking over his guest in a manner similar to a teenage male. Olberman is more of a slice and dicer and comes to the table with far more knowledge.

    Hillary left O'Reilly in quite good shape. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by jeffhas on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:28:48 PM EST
    And vice versa (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jeannie on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:56:34 PM EST
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:29:01 PM EST
    I dunno. I thought so but I am not so sure any more.

    Bill O'Reilly is not stupid. Not at all. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Southsider on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:50:51 PM EST
    O'Reilly is a canny hack.  Very sharp, and very good at the P.T. Barnumesque game he plays.  I respect him more than I do KO simply because I respect the fact that he has been much better at managing his "brand" than Olbermann, who frankly seems like 100% id and 0% ego or superego.

    The old O shined through (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:34:22 PM EST
    in his Hillary interview back in March. His hallmark is that he lets the person being interviewed answer the question. But the truth is that I haven't watched him since then. He really has no credibility.

    He did? That's interesting (none / 0) (#96)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:45:20 PM EST
    He only ever talks about his days as a teacher, and I think below high school level. I had never heard he was an attorney, educated at Harvard.

    Nooooo (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:56:25 AM EST
    HE didn't.

    Sheesh. the things people will write.


    If you claim to want "journalism"... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Kristen16 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:23:50 AM EST
    Let's at least get some facts out there... you know, those annoying little things called "facts"...

    Bill OReilly's got a bachelor's degree is in History from Marist College.  He also has 2 Master degrees.  One in Broadcast Journalism from Boston University and another in Public Administration from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

    Mr Olbermann has B.A. in Comm. Arts from Cornell University.


    Funny (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:32:55 PM EST
    So much amusement at the prospect Olbermann and Matthews getting reigned in on MSNBC.  They don't want to be the "Fox Left," as BTD puts it.  Hmmmmmm.  

    I suspect though, that with Olbermann not in the middle of the network, progressives will regret the loss of even a semblance of respect for issues we care about, from a prime time television anchor.

    As I understand it, (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:36:18 PM EST
    they aren't canceling Countdown and Hardball. But even if they did, there would be nothing to lament IMO.

    Lamentation (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:41:38 PM EST
    isn't a word I'd use for the passing of any television news program that currently exists.  I'm still trying to figure out why such a grand send off for that Great Enabler, Tim Russert.

    But I will say this.  Because of what the Dem  Primary a lot of you have apparently decided that Olbermann and Matthews are no better, if not worse, than the Fox Greenbloods.  That is really freakin unfortunate.


    They are no more credible than Fox (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:44:40 PM EST
    Heck, I thought that about Matthews BEFORE the Primary (and about Olbermann after his 3rdish "Special Comment")

    How long (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by rooge04 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:47:47 PM EST
    have you been around? Before Bush became so unpopular, Chris Matthew was a died-in-the-wool Republican. Only recently did he start acting like "sort of" a Democrat.  The man spent the 90s ridiculing, lying and perpetuation false rumors and attacks against our Democratic president.  Read some Somersby if you'd like a history lesson on just how un-Dem Chris Matthews is.   He even went so far as to have Gennifer Flowers on his show to talk about murders our sitting Dem president and First Lady committed.  With absolutely no facts or actual evidence to back it up.

    Be careful whom you call a messenger of "progressive" values.


    I have no love whatever for Matthews (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:42:54 PM EST
    If my comments implied pro-Matthews, that is not my point.  

    Olbermann is a different matter altogether, however.  Though he went way too far in the Primary, he has indeed shown respect for true progressivism since he has been on television news.  I honestly cannot think of another prime time anchor or Sunday Talk Show host one can say that about.


    What does (none / 0) (#105)
    by miguelito on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:28:54 AM EST
    that have to do with how he attacked our President?  Joe Lieberman was a Democrat then, too.  Doesn't make him one now, does it?

    What makes them better than the (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:49:29 PM EST
    FOX Greenbloods?  And what is a Greenblood?

    Olbermann Better (1.00 / 2) (#71)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:45:57 PM EST
    Because he never shilled for the GOP, and he also critiqued Dems for being a weak opposition.  In other words, say what you will, he was a strong critic of those in power from the time he got on television.  Too bad there have been so few of those.  Far from perfect, but to say he's no more credible than people who helped the GOP sell the war is just specious.

    Greenblood is a special word.  


    I would miss (none / 0) (#100)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:59:32 PM EST
    Jonathan Turley and John Dean

    I think it is a recognition (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:39:20 PM EST
    that Olbermann is just a Left wing version of O'Reilly now.

    Maybe (1.00 / 2) (#52)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:44:29 PM EST
    Or maybe its that people aren't over the fact that he so clearly preferred Obama over Hill in the Primary.  Hmmmm.  Wonder which one it could be, in the context of this particular blog?

    And the fact remains that Olbermann speaks with respect to the issues we on this site have been saying, at least, that we care about.  Name a prime time anchor on any station that does that.  Russert didn't do it.  

    Sometimes "objective" seems like another word for "enabler" in political journalism.


    The way he behaved toward Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:46:54 PM EST
    was indistinguishable from the way the right side of dkos behaved toward her. That is credit to neither.

    And BTW, if this comment didn't make you look like an idiot, it would be pretty insulting.


    I can only speak for me (5.00 / 8) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:48:36 PM EST
    And I can tell you what I object to.

    That his behavior during the primaries was atrocious goes without saying.

    That he is a total hack is undeniable and you seem to love it.

    I detest hypocrisy and yours is showing quite clearly.


    Okay (none / 0) (#85)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:18:06 PM EST
    I never said he was a journalistic giant, I never said he was anything but atrocious in the Primary, I never said he was unbiased, and I never even said I liked him all that much.

    OTOH.  Where else are you going to turn on the television and see someone, any freakin' one, calling out Republicans for their failures.  
    Call me hypocritical or whatever you want, but what's really shocking is that there have been so few television pundits criticizing these people with all they have wrought.

    Warts and all, Olbermann has been about it, on that front.  


    Or maybe (none / 0) (#92)
    by DaleA on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:33:38 PM EST
    it was not wise to dis the sitting Senator from NY, home of MSNBC. And her husband. Suspect that she has had some time to make calls about the matter. And apply other pressures.

    Who said McCain wouldn't go on KO? (none / 0) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:16:33 PM EST

    No One Outright (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by fercryinoutloud on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:40:47 PM EST
    said that. It was just a question posed by whoever BTD quoted.

    But from listening to McCain's campaign manager to day there is no way that McCain will go on shows like that. He didn't say that but he did more or less indicate that they are going to be very stingy with the press.

    Besides McCain has nothing to gain from going on the KO Clown Show. That is just not a place to get his message out when he can get it out to the same people in other ways.

    Obama was not too smart to go on O'Reilly. Which once again shows me my instincts and trained political eye was right about him all the time. He talks about judgment but he continues to show time after time that he lacks judgment and worse - common sense.

    It would be pretty funny to call McCain a wuss for not going on a TV show when the guy went through what he did as a POW. I'm not a McCain supporter but I bet I am not the only one here who chocked up watching his POW story at the convention. Pretty dramatic.


    Fred Thompson's detailed description (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:55:03 PM EST
    of Sen. McCain's experiences was quite moving.  I think people make fun of his being a POW at their peril.

    Nobosy makes fun of his being a POW (none / 0) (#88)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:23:56 PM EST
    It's constantly being told about it, again and again, as if we forgot, that has become the caricature.  People don't make fun of 9/11 either, but they sure do make fun of Giuliani's use of it as a personal prop in all circumstances, don't they?  And why wouldn't they?  

    And then the McCain campaign's use of what happened to him in Vietnam, to defend him from criticism during this 2008 election, doesn't help matters.  Does it?


    Just giving my opinion. When people (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:30:45 PM EST
    continually tease, oh did you know McCain was a POW?--some (me find it offensive.

    Those who turned it into a Marketing Tool (none / 0) (#95)
    by glanton on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:42:38 PM EST

    Are the ones responsible.


    I believe that this is (none / 0) (#9)
    by Faust on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:22:36 PM EST
    a suggestion that the question be put to McCain. Why? You think MSNBC hasn't asked? If they did you think McCain would jump right on that?

    I can't speak for John McCain. (none / 0) (#69)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:41:06 PM EST
    Will KO even ask McCain? (none / 0) (#4)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:18:38 PM EST
    If he thinks he is as big as O'Reilly, surely he thinks he is as big as Oprah!  Maybe he'll have McCain on in late November.

    I'll put it another way (3.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:20:24 PM EST
    KO is Oprah without the journalistic integrity.  :-)

    Oprah had Obama on her show (none / 0) (#35)
    by litigatormom on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:33:26 PM EST
    before she endorsed him, which the Rethugs then used to tried to bully her to have Palin on her show.  

    But now Oprah's been scooped by ABC's Charlie Gibson, who has agreed to interview Palin (though probably not until after she's spent a few more weeks reading briefing books).


    I should have put the snark tag (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:36:54 PM EST
    Oprah has been open in her endorsement of Obama and honest and consistent in her pledge not to have candidates on her show. I do think it is amusing that she consistently shows more integrity than an NBC 'news personality', or whatever the heck they call Olbermann.

    Countdown with no ratings. (none / 0) (#5)
    by az on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:19:21 PM EST
    If more than 3 people watched the show , maybe he would go there .

    O reilly is the most watched on any of the networks in prime time who the hell won't want to go on that....

    I yield to no man in my hate for Olbermann... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Southsider on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:24:15 PM EST
    ...but Countdown is actually MSNBC's highest rated show, if I'm not mistaken.  

    It's pretty much locked up the "DKos left" demographic in a tight bow.  That does, of course, put a pretty tight ceiling on KO's reach.  Which is what differentiates him from O'Reilly, quite frankly.  O'Reilly is a reliably right-leaning populist blowhard to be sure, but he draws a shocking amount of viewers from both sides of the aisle.  I think it's kind of like the Howard Stern phenomenon, where several of his most attentive listeners were the guys who professed to hate him so much.  It takes a certain sort of showmanship to sell yourself that way successfully, but apparently O'Reilly's got it a lot more than KO.

    FWIW, I don't watch either one.  Hell, I don't even have cable.


    Olbermann beats O'Reilly in the demos (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:24:44 PM EST
    on occasion. Your comment is silly.

    Re; (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by az on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:31:28 PM EST
    Sure when O Reilly is on vacation and re runs are on...

    The point is Mccain has very little to gain from going on that show in terms of ratings and the ideological perspective of those watching it...

    O reilly hasn't really show open hostility to Obama while Olbermann rants on him everyday , outside of a gotcha moment on Countdown with no ratings and pumping up of his nemesis stature and ego  ,

    What exactly would he have to gain ?

    Mccain doesn't need him to win


    Moot point... (none / 0) (#6)
    by DaveOinSF on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:19:26 PM EST
    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:24:16 PM EST
    Not moot at all. O'Reilly is not the anchor for Fox's political coverage.

    Oh goodie! (3.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Faust on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:28:26 PM EST
    David Gregory will be replacement anchor??? David Gregory is awesome!



    Heh (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:22:00 PM EST
    As I said in the open thread... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Southsider on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:27:24 PM EST
    ...couldn't happen to a nicer pair o'guys.

    On a random aside, BTD, I'd just like to give you some belated thanks for being a strong voice of decency on our side.  I felt pretty homeless after the whole Hillary blowup and the Obamafication (zombification?) of That Other Site.  Finding places like TL and Corrente has made me realize that there's still a place for folks like me.


    I read the Hot Air story (none / 0) (#19)
    by litigatormom on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:25:47 PM EST
    to mean that MSNBC was just dropping KO and Tweety as the co-anchors for their primetime political coverage (they anchored the primary results nights, the conventions, and were expected to co-anchor the debates and election night).  I did not interpret it to mean that  they were losing their respecive shows.

    Prolly haven't lost (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by kredwyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:28:10 PM EST
    their actual shows, but it's a hit for them to be taken off as political anchors.

    No more political Bert n' Ernie antics.


    I think Matthews will be mortified. He (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:46:04 PM EST
    really does love politics.

    NYT link (none / 0) (#30)
    by nycstray on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:29:30 PM EST
    quite a list (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by AlSmith on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:44:58 PM EST
    quite a list of transgressions in that NYT story, and people must have noticed that MSNBC has "NBC" in the name and cant be run like the local free newspaper.

    I think Olbermann is literally dreadfully nuts. Nuts in the Pat O'Brien way where he is barely keeping it together on air but things are starting to boil through.

    He was fearing for his life in Minn? Adding 'paranoid' to his usual delusional.


    Maddow Show (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by supertroopers on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:26:47 PM EST
    This is the crazy part - NBC is like the DEMS they are self-destructing before our very eyes. Instead of a Hillary-Obama ticket which would win in a landslide the R's have siezed the day with McCain-Palin. NBC is going suicidal like you describe added the MadCow show in addition to make their network even worse.

    It's comedic to watch the D's and NBC screw up 2008.

    Maybe this is really the Clinton's fault (aka plan). Is Bill/Hillary more powerful than we've imagined? That they have the connections/power to influence NBC and the D's to self-destruct and give Hillary the White House in 2012?

    Not a bad final scenario. Let McCain have all these problems. Gridlock for another 4 years and then HILLARY.


    I like this idea personally n/t (none / 0) (#103)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:23:26 AM EST
    (sorry, couldn't resist.  This can count as #1 of my four anti-Obama comments allotted for today.)

    re: the update (none / 0) (#20)
    by kredwyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:26:23 PM EST

    ha (none / 0) (#83)
    by connecticut yankee on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:16:09 PM EST
    McCain could be interviewed by Fidel Castro and you'd come out with as many actual answers as you would from anyone else.  THey have all perfected the art of ignoring the question and saying whatever they feel like.  Its sort of a stream of consciousness word jazz these days.

    Buh-Byw, Media Darling (none / 0) (#104)
    by goldberry on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:02:13 AM EST
    So much for Obama as the media darling. Now that the Republicans have gotten Clinton out of the way, they can start to dismantle the operation that put Obama in the top spot. Brokaw and Williams aren't in Obama's pocket and are much more likely to be objective in their reporting of Obama. So, when the GOP start nailing him in debate, it may actually get covered like Obama is getting nailed in debate. Things will return to normal with the GOP calling the shots.

    Well, that didn't take long.

    Sorry, BTD.  We told you this would happen. You know, bucking the frenzied narrative of the past 9 months didn't make us popular and we were unsuccessful in spite of our best efforts.  But at least we have the satisfaction of saying we were vindicated in everything we predicted.  Imagine how much better it would have been for all of us if people such as yourself had joined us instead of remaining on the fence.  Gradually, we might have turned this around.  

    Average viewership (none / 0) (#108)
    by BrianJ on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:39:53 AM EST
    In July to exclude convention spikes:

    O'Reilly Factor 2,252,000
    Countdown with KO 959,000

    Averages for the second quarter (April-June):

    O'Reilly 2,428,000
    Olbermann 804,000

    What else needs to be said?

    MSNBC did like being Fox Left (none / 0) (#110)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:52:14 AM EST
    they just could not dent the ratings.  If KO were number one would we be having this conversation?

    If you claim to want "journalism"... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Kristen16 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:28:44 AM EST
    Bill OReilly's got a bachelor's degree is in History from Marist College.  He also has 2 Master degrees.  One in Broadcast Journalism from Boston University and another in Public Administration from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

    Mr Olbermann has B.A. in Comm. Arts from Cornell University.

    (I posted this above in response to an earlier comment but would also like to at least put some actual facts out there FYI. Thanks!)

    McCain has appeared on Jon Stewart's (none / 0) (#113)
    by lizpolaris on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:31:19 AM EST
    show many times.  I think it's pretty safe to say that The Daily Show has a more than overly obvious progressive liberal bias?  And McCain's welcome by Stewart has been gracious but not softball.

    I doubt McCain would shy away from Olbermann or any other talking head if he thought an interview would improve his chances in the election and fit his campaign strategy.

    Different comparison (none / 0) (#114)
    by waldenpond on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:27:59 AM EST
    I don't compare Olberman to O'Reilly.  I compare Oblaberman to Hannity.  Would Obama go on Hannity? No.