MyDD :: Keith Olbermann's Head Explodes

by CalDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:51:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

that's great! hadn't seen anything but the last bit of it before. talk about humiliating the guy with the small 'you know what' -- very funny

by LordMike on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:46:09 PM EST

It's still going on, 'cos Obama has 150 or so delegate lead...

Don't blame him! He's not the one trying to come in from behind.

well said (2.00 / 4)

by Molee on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:46:15 PM EST

Re: Keith Olbermann's Head Explodes (2.00 / 6)

indeed!

by zane on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:46:32 PM EST

by xtrarich on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:46:39 PM EST

Because Hillary has won a few battles but lost the war. She needed to win by way over 10% to catch up on the delegate and popular vote count.

Re: Keith Olbermann's Head Explodes (2.00 / 4)

She IS winning by 10%...

by americanincanada on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:54:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"way over" (none / 0)

John McCain is a Bush ally on Social Security.

by John DE on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:02:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

whatever you say (2.00 / 1)

I am sick of the disrespect shown to Sen.Clinton by many on Dailykos, and now, too often, here. You aren't winning hearts and minds.

by SoCalVet on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:08:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Olbermann's Head Explodes (2.00 / 9)

The bigger they are the harder they fall. You just made my evening a whole lot sweeter Todd - THANKS!

Donate to Hillary Now!

by alegre on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:46:41 PM EST

Well said, Todd. Thanks. When indeed..... (2.00 / 8)

Obama supporter working to defeat McCain.

by Rumarhazzit on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:46:55 PM EST

Re: Keith Olbermann's Head Explodes (1.91 / 12)

Seriously, Keith is wasting his hard-earned political capital. He was doing very well but now he's taking himself down by being so ridiculous.

by Montague on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:46:59 PM EST

Poor Keith - and Chris was plumb ashen! (2.00 / 10)

These guys are so anti-Hillary it's unreal. I guess she offers no tingle up the leg! which suits me just fine!

I am SO glad I quit watching KO long before he became so anti-Hillary. He was going a bit wild for me, with his rants. Opinions are OK but hold the rabies please!

by Southern Mouth on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:47:56 PM EST

Re: Poor Keith - and Chris was plumb ashen! (2.00 / 6)

Ditto for me. You nailed it.

by Montague on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:48:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Me too (2.00 / 2)

Pity though. Olbermann's show used to be pretty decent. Now it's all about taking down the people he hates. Olbermann has become the left's version of Limbaugh.

by The Fat Lady Sings on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:56:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Olbermann's Head Explodes (2.00 / 7)

Keith is a joke. The 'Clinton is Bush' statement should get him removed from moderating these events. I literally tuned into MSNBC just to see how they would report the Hillary win. Within 5 minutes Keith makes that pathetic statement and turned to another station.

by oaktownchicken on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:48:32 PM EST

When did he say (2.00 / 2)

Clinton is Bush?

I saw the program in question, he was asking if Clinton getting the Supers to over turn the primary results would have the same effect as Gore winning the electoral college versus Gore winning the popular vote.

To suggest he was saying Clinton is Bush is a stretch to say the least.

by Nazgul35 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:54:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When did he say (2.00 / 1)

Wrong - Kieth asked if Hillary is the primary version of Bush (Gore v. Bush 2000)

by oaktownchicken on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:02:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Olbermann's Head Explodes (2.00 / 2)

So, why can't he close the deal? Seriously, he's gotten tons of positive publicity, the media adores him, yet he can't get it done. That's a big problem that shouldn't and can't be overlooked.

IMHO, a joint ticket is the only way to resolve this. I've heard all the reasons why they won't- but when 1 out of 4 of her supporters and 1 out of 5 of his say they won't support the other, is there really any other solution?

I don't think so.

Time to suck it up, folks, and get it done together.

"Fear not the path of truth, for the lack of people walking on it" Bobby Kennedy

by Narrowback gal on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:52:17 PM EST

"Fear not the path of truth, for the lack of people walking on it" Bobby Kennedy

ooh, sorry, should have specified that I was talking about Obama, not Keith!

by Narrowback gal on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:54:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Catriley sez on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:43:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL- Actually, I thought the first paragraph seemed to describe KO pretty well tonight anyway! (but I knew you meant Obama.) ;)

I guess the same question could be asked (none / 0)

why can't Clinton get it done?

She had all the institutional organization, she was inevitable (before she wasn't) and had the highest name recognition of any candidate entering a primary in quite a while.

Explain to me again why someone who can't win the primary with all of this going for her is somehow expected to win the general election?

Last time I checked, the only candidates to win the general election, actually were able to win the party's nomination first...

Call me old fashioned, but...

by Nazgul35 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:57:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But that cuts both ways (2.00 / 4)

The only candidates to LOSE the general election are also the ones who were able to win their party's nomination.

by Montague on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:00:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess the same question could be asked (none / 0)

to answer you, I would suggest a couple of points.
First,for as much institutional support as she has, she also has enemies within the party- accumulated over the long period of both her and her husbands political careers. (The old adage be careful who you step on, on your way up the ladder comes to mind)
Second, the media were the ones with the inevitable baloney. Predictably, they haven't got a clue. About anything.

Obama can't win without her backers. She can't win without his. Both sets want their candidate. There's only one way to resolve it.

Why is the obvious solution not clear?

"Fear not the path of truth, for the lack of people walking on it" Bobby Kennedy

by Narrowback gal on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:20:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess the same question could be asked (none / 0)

The media didn't create her inevitability. She said quite clearly that this would be over on February 5. And the reason she racked up all those superdelegates early on was because much of the party infrastructure also saw her as inevitable. That wasn't a media creation.

You are correct Obama cannot win without Hillary's backers. But considering the impossibility of winning the pledged delegate lead and the almost total improbability of winning the popular vote (even if Florida is counted; don't talk about Michigan), there is just no conceivable argument for superdelegates to go en masse to Hillary Clinton at this point.

She can keep fighting on all she wants. She's earned that right tonight. But the race hasn't changed in ways it needed to for her. He will win back most of his popular vote margin in NC. They will roughly tie in IN. That leaves a big win for her in KY matched by a big win for him in OR. Then a small win for her in WV and small wins for him in SD and MT. Who knows what PR will do, but it won't be very decisive in terms of votes or delegates.

Is the party going to come together if she takes the fight to the convention? She has core voters that he needs: blue collar white women and Latinos. Perhaps these voters won't move to Obama if they perceive her as having been shivved out of the race. I can understand that. Maybe the fight has to go through June 3 then. But after that, barring a total collapse from Obama, she should coalesce behind him.

by elrod on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:37:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Olbermann's Head Explodes (2.00 / 0)

Given that Obama decreases the margins against him in pretty much every state where he starts behind, the idea that that just isn't enough, that he should be able to go into a state 6 weeks out trailing by 20% and "close the deal" by pulling ahead, is simply silly. Show me a single state where Clinton has demonstrated this ability to "close the deal" by coming from way behind to win. Hell, show me a single state where Clinton has been able to maintain a lead or catch up substantially in a state where she started off way behind.

Pennsylvania had great demographics for Clinton, and Obama erased half her lead. If Obama can go into each state in the US and add 10% to his pre-campaign performance against McCain, this will look like 1984 in reverse. He isn't going to do that well in the GE, but at least we have some idea he grows on people over time. The best Clinton ever does is not lose quite as many votes as she had to to lose out right.

by alephnul on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:12:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by slynch on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:26:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think the "close the deal" statement means that he can't put her away in the entire primary, not any particular state. He has yet to knock her out of the race, and it doesn't look like he'll be able to.

by elrod on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:38:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But that's kind of silly, isn't it? She's holding on in demographically favorable states. When he has demographically favorable states he's blowing her out by more than 20 points.

She's staying in the race because she believes she's entitled to the nomination.

by slynch on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:47:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

she's staying in the race because she believes she'll get the nomination. Obama has not won this, and the fact that he can't put her away in ANY big, key states will trouble the superdelegates. So, I don't think it's silly. I'm still not completely convinced that she will end up losing the popular vote count (she may). If she were to win that, she's got a very strong case for the nomination.

by alephnul on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:34:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It isn't troubling the super delegates. Obama has been steadily picking up SDs for months. Clinton got almost all of her SD backing before Iowa, and has had to struggle to make up for the SDs who have dropped her. Since the primaries six weeks ago and now, I think Obama has picked up more net SDs than Clinton picked up net pledged delegates last night. I'll bet that Obama will pick up several more net SDs between now and May 6th. The theory that the uncommitted super delegates are suddenly going to turn overwhelmingly for Clinton is supported by nothing but a wish and prayer.

Clinton lost ground in PA. White voters and older voters gave Obama more support in PA than they did in OH. That is unlikely to terrify any SDs.

Key states like Wisconsin. Key states like Minnesota. Key states like Colorado. Granted, key states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Big states don't equal key states. Obama will take NY, NJ, IL, and CA in a walk and both Clinton and Obama won't lose sleep over losing TX.

Re: Keith Olbermann's Head Explodes (1.50 / 2)

No, she's winning states that do not have jacked-up caucuses that only represent a tiny fraction of voters. She's winning in the states that count in the GE, regardless of Howard Dean's scheme to remake the Party.

A candidate cannot win in the GE (especially against a repub that people "think" is moderate), if they cannot (even with spending 3 to 5 times more than the other candidate) win in the big states (the swing voters.)

As far as "demographically desirable", Hillary is quite strong with women, and last time I looked, no particular states have more women than any others.

by Catriley sez on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:47:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by fredster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:26:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, states like Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. Like they are going Dem in the general.

by alephnul on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:39:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And Wisconsin and Minnesota. And Oregon. And Washington. Some of those matter a lot in the GE.

Don't fool yourself that Obama only does well in states with lots of black people. He does quite well in the states with very few black people. At least the ones that aren't confused about which side of the Civil War they fought on (Kentucky, I'm looking at you).

"Fear not the path of truth, for the lack of people walking on it" Bobby Kennedy

Oh, come on now. He's not exactly an unknown at this stage of the game. at this point, with the money he's spent, and the amount of positive media he's gotten, he should be able to finish her off. yet again, he hasn't - and this in a very important GE state.

She picked up the undecideds in Ohio, and again here in Penn.

You are dismissing how solid her victory was tonight. She has a lock on the blue collar vote, the Catholic vote, women, and seniors. You can not just disregard this voting bloc; or you do so at the peril of winning the GE. This baloney of "they won't vote against their economic interest" is self delusion. YES THEY WILL. Haven't they done it over and over again? YES THEY HAVE. and they will do it again.

She can't disregard his solid base either. If they stay home in a GE, she's screwed.

It can be mutual destruction or win win all around.

They need to put aside their egos and face facts.

by Narrowback gal on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:36:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by SueBee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:16:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What's in it for Hillary to be Obama's VP? If he loses, she's a loser too and can't run again. She'll sit it out, watch McCain win, divorce Bill, and run as a single woman in 2012.

Of course Obama is too arrogant to ever accept the VP.

Arrogance (none / 0)

Obama is ahead in pledged delegates and the popular vote (not to mention fundraising, polling on trustworthiness, etc) ... If there is any arrogance here it is expecting him to take the #2 slot.

by Virginia Liberal on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:13:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Grandma M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:03:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry Narrowback,

I must respectfully disagree. This is what happens when a candidate like Obama is NOT fully vetted at the beginning of the process.

There is much more on him coming out, and it shows a very bad picture. Someone at another blog, wrote that the RNC is going to start showing some of Obama's past associations and activities in a nationwide commercial.

Knowing what I personally have found, just by my lonesome, Hillary would be forever smeared if Obama is her running mate and the Dems will wander in the wilderness for another 40 years.

That would be a horrible outcome for all of us and or country.

by muggle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:13:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Only with Clinton in the top slot would this work, and is the only way I would vote for a ticket with Obama on it.

An eloquent, sane diary! (2.00 / 3)

Beautifully put, Todd!

He outspends her on media, somewhere between 2:1 and 4:1. He spend many weeks campaigning in the state. Then he loses by 10 points?

What's wrong with this logic? How can this primary not continue until the Convention?

If I was an Obama supporter, I'd be pretty embarrassed by some of the pretzel logic I'm reading right now. Kossacks' heads are exploding all over the place on the Big Orange at the moment, too.

Sad.

Todd, thanks for your breath of sanity here. Very much appreciated.

by bobswern on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:52:26 PM EST

Re: An eloquent, sane diary! (none / 0)

Heh. I, too, on rare occasion like to pop over to Orange and see what they're frothing about.

by Montague on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:02:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

but Todd, didn't you know (2.00 / 1)

that anything bad that happens to Obama must have been Clinton's fault?

The Obama supporters have a good spin going now. Their candidate has a great chance to beat McCain, except that Hillary, but staying in the race, may be fatally damaging Obama for the general.

If he loses in November, they're going to blame it all on the Clintons.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:53:26 PM EST

Re: but Todd, didn't you know (2.00 / 4)

No doubt, it's all Clinton's fault that Obama didn't win Pennsylvania.

by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:54:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by edmandspath on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:59:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And also, it's Obamas fault that Hillary is going to continue even though she can't win.

Why does he insist on her staying in the race, anyway? What is wrong with that man?

Him and his silly "math" - doesn't he know addition is for elitists?

by pdxarch on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:24:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is just plain stupid at this point. Obama supporters just havent learnt math or anything else apparently. Look math guy, the math at this point and likely at the end of all primaries will say the following (Get this through your apparently thick head):

Neither has the magic number of delegates they need to win the nomination.

Now as to why the superdelegates are not obligated to or designed to or meant to endorse a candidate who is ahead by a likely miniscule percentage (say about 6-7%) of delegates and likely behind in popular vote by a miniscule percentage, pls look at my earlier comment some one week ago or something. Too tiring to repeat this for people who have comprehension problems

by alephnul on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:14:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Look what the SDs are doing though, and its hard to see why we're still arguing over what they might do eventually. The SDs can and will do as they please, but the chance that 80% of the ones who haven't decided yet are going to go for Clinton, when 80% of the ones that have decided since Super Tuesday have gone for Obama, seems pretty unlikely.

80% of undecided SDs would be enough to beat a 180 delegate with the remaining 308 undeclared SDs. That probably puts Obama's eventual pledged delegate lead a bit above what it will actually be, but not by much, and more than a few SDs aren't undecided but neutral and will not reverse the pledged delegate count, so 80% of the ones who are going to decide one way or the other seems about what Clinton would need.

There aren't any obvious built in shocks (Obama loses WV and KY!) and Obama did okay in PA. If we see an avalanche of SDs running to Clinton before NC, I'll start to doubt that Obama is the next president, but barring that, I don't think arguments over the SDs are going to go the way Clinton supporters hope. I have a hard time seeing hundreds of SDs deciding that a popular vote victory claim based on the popular vote in a territory that can't vote in the GE is going to sway them to Clinton, and you have to cook the count pretty badly (Obama got 0 votes in MI, and that's how were counting it) for Clinton to have a chance of a popular vote victory other than based overwhelmingly on the votes in PR.

by wrb on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:59:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yep.

I will, for sure

Srsly? (2.00 / 5)

Because if we Dems lose the WH this year, I'm going to blame it on Obama.

by Montague on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:05:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Srsly? (none / 0)

And I'm going to blame it on you eastern Europeans who are deprived of vowels in your childhoods.

by wrb on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:08:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: but Todd, didn't you know (2.00 / 1)

Desmoinesdem, you're right on the money. I stomached Ed Schultz for a few minutes yesterday, and he was already spinning that garbage.

Yes, I am a Clintonista for Obama.

by Denny Crane on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:08:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

True (2.00 / 1)

I rather expected it would be 'blame the Clinton's' no matter what. First the Republicans do it - now it's Democrats too. I think Hillary's got an ocean of chutzpah. No matter how heavy the fire - she's still standing. She'd make one hell of a president!

by The Fat Lady Sings on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:04:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Olbermann's Head Explodes (2.00 / 6)

I screamed a giant, "FUCK YOU !!!" at the TV - when Saint Pontifical Olbermann compared Clinton to Dubya. If he wants to be a PR person for the Obama campaign - fine - but let's not try to put on airs of unbiased coverage any more.

And BTW, Keith. Actually there have been cases of the person trailing in delegates receiving the nomination - as recently as Hubert Humphrey in 1968. So we are NOT in completely new political territory. Does anybody give these guys history web links before they go one air?

by johnnygunn on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:53:32 PM EST

Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.

Humphrey kicked some serious electoral ass later on too. It was awesome.

;)

by fogiv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:01:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by johnnygunn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:36:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Compared to McGovern in 1972 - when the party was again divided - Humphrey kicked ass.

Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.

True dat. Who won in '72 again?

by fogiv on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:39:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Olbermann's Head Explodes (none / 0)

Not McGovern.
But Tricky Dicky got his soon enough.

by johnnygunn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:06:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by SueBee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:22:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think it was Nixon who beat McGovern so badly in 1972. Looks like we could have a repeat this year. :(

It's just the beat of time, the beat that must go on
If you've been trying for years, we already heard your song

Ummm, do we really want a repeat of 1968? Just askin.

And, really, isn't that why we got stuck with superdelegates in the first place because of the backroom deal that gave HHH the nominee?

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:01:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's just the beat of time, the beat that must go on
If you've been trying for years, we already heard your song

That would be, "gave HHH the nomination."

Been a long day.

Congrats to all the HRC supporters out there. You've got a long road ahead of you, but I'm sure the win feels good tonight.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:03:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Olbermann's Head Explodes (none / 0)

Of course, those changes gave the Dems McGovern in 1972.
Now, I loved McGovern, but he didn't do quite as well as HHH.

by johnnygunn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:37:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's just the beat of time, the beat that must go on
If you've been trying for years, we already heard your song

Hey, I campaigned for McGovern.

Umm, ok, so I walked around with my mom while she campaigned for McGovern. Went something like this:

Knock knock knock.... Door opens.
"Hello Sir and/or Madame, I would like to talk to you about George McGovern. He.."

"I'm supporting MY PRESIDENT"

Door closes.

Come to think of it. I'm pretty sure she took me along so people wouldn't be too rude to her in front of a 5 year old.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:15:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by alephnul on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:17:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Super delegates and the fact that pledged delegates are not actually pledged actually came in after Kennedy failed to oust Carter in 1980.

Did you mean some other changes? I actually don't know what changes in the delegate system '68 brought.

by Clancy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:01:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How'd '68 turn out for HHH by the way? Did he rock Nixon's world, or what?

by johnnygunn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:38:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Compared to McGovern in 1972?

by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:54:04 PM EST

Olbermann is just terrible, even Chris Matthews has to be the Clinton defender, over the top with stupidness.

by wengler on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:59:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah well this is what happens when Hillary started acting like she was running on a ticket with McCain.

You can hate on Olbermann all you want, but he has been perfectly consistent with calling out Republicans on their BS, as well as Republican enablers.

Hillary's whole line about "I've got a lifetime of experience, Senator McCain has a whole lifetime of experience and Obama has a speech from 2002" doesn't really go over really well with those of us who first and foremost want there to be a substantial shift away from Bush policies in Washington.

Re: Keith Olbermann's Head Explodes (2.00 / 3)

I was amused when Olbermann started arguing that Hillary wasn't being gracious because she "mocked" Obama throughout her victory speech (by adopting Obama's hopeful language). Even Matthews seemed stumped by that one.

by ryeland on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:54:10 PM EST

Re: Keith Olbermann's Head Explodes (2.00 / 2)

I wasn't watching, but did Matthews have any leg sensations tonight?

by Scotch on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:55:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by ryeland on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:57:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No sensations at all. Matthews seemed a bit depressed.

by susie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:02:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I thought Chris Matthews was a little subdued tonight.
He seemed content to let the guests/consultants do the speaking, which was just as well.

Actually, I probably spent more time with CNN, though I skipped around channels a bit.

Even though Frank Luntz is a Republican shill, I sort of enjoy his takes on words and opinions.
He said Hillary's speech was perfect, covering all the necessary ingredients- thanks, looking to the future, references to her ties to PA.

by Montague on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:07:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Perhaps he had a tinkling sensation....

by SueBee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:26:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Matthews looked and sounded terrible. He had spent the weekend in and around Philly for Obama and was stunned when Hillary did so well. Chris and Olbie are NOT happy campers. If their boy doesn't win this nomination they will surely leave the country in protest. Ever cloudy has a silver lining.

by fredster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:37:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

they will surely leave the country in protest

Can we wave buh-bye?

by Scotch on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:54:25 PM EST

Oberman sounds a little bitter. Does he live in Pennsylvania?

It's just the beat of time, the beat that must go on
If you've been trying for years, we already heard your song

MSNBC is getting pretty hard to watch, and I'm an Obama supporter. Matthews often uses phrases like, "the thing I fear" and then describes some potential hazard to Obama. Doesn't seem to concerned about problems for Clinton.

Anyway, Olberman's shtick often includes some strange leap of logic in the form of a question that his guests have to reshape into something reasonable. Generally more amusing when he's doing it against the Republicans.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:56:49 PM EST

by wengler on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:04:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Matthews has always been hard to watch...

And when he used to start talking about Rudy, it was the same sort of man love he used to give Bush in the 90 percent approval days.

Matthews will always just be another brown-nosing media whore. If a politician is popular he will be there to carry water for them.

Re: Keith Olbermann's Head Explodes (2.00 / 0)

you mean like:

"why hasn't Hillary been able to close the deal?" :-)

by wrb on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:57:52 PM EST

Keith provides some balance (2.00 / 0)

Have you not noticed the format? Some of them are pro-Clinton and some are pro-Obama.

And since he was called on the carpet for his tingling leg comment (which was stupid) Chris Matthews has been going out of his way to slam Obama.

Tonight's gems include: the results in PA are "regular people" against "white liberals and african-americans." Also, on Obama's campaign - "It's too debonaire; it's too Fred Astaire; it's too Kumbaya."

That couldn't have come out better for the Clinton campaign if they had scripted it themselves.

Almost every time Olberman says something pro-Obama on the election-eve shows, it's been in response to baldly pro-Clinton comments.

And this is a longstanding dynamic - Olberman about lost it on Super Tuesday when half the commentators were talking about what a big night it was for Clinton - what a big win - when anybody who knew anything about the map knew it meant she was in big, big trouble.

So, yes, I'm not completely in the tank - Olberman is pro-Obama. But he's scarcely the only viewpoint on the show.

by TL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:01:00 AM EST

Re: Keith provides some balance (none / 0)

If you're trying to sell the idea that Chris Matthews is suddenly pro-Clinton, you'll need to do better than that.

Yes, I am a Clintonista for Obama.

by Denny Crane on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:11:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keith provides some balance (none / 0)

Not saying he's pro-Clinton in some deep sense.

Saying he's (1) consistently stupid, and (2) has lurched from saying stupid anti-Hillary things to saying stupid anti-Obama things. Or maybe you think his comments were just unvarnished truth?

by TL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:40:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Matthews Better Than Olbermann For A Change (2.00 / 2)

Joe Scarborough and Harold Ford offer great analysis. Pat Buchanan, too!

by BigBoyBlue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:01:14 AM EST

Re: Matthews Better Than Olbermann For A Change (none / 0)

No sane Democrat would have ever uttered that last line. Buchanan and great analysis are mutual exclusive. They haven't coexisted since around 1973.

by Clancy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:04:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinio n/23wed1.html?ref=opinion

This is coming from a newspaper that endorsed Clinton:

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election...

If you can't understand Olberman's anger, you are not paying attention.

by thinman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:05:26 AM EST

by Dave B on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:08:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think they pulled the trigger on that one a wee bit early. Frank Rich perhaps?

I got a good laugh out of it.

by TL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:44:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, actually. Editorials are written by ... the editorial board. The one that endorsed Hillary.

Flag lapel pins, Hamas, William Ayers, bittergate, etc. etc. You really think that wasn't negative campaigning?

I give her props for giving it the full Atwater - she was shameless. The way she dropped Ayers on Obama and then refused to say whether Bill was right to pardon two Weathermen. That was stone-cold Atwater. Well done.

Please don't pretend that was "drawing a legitimate contrast."

by hctb on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:24:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

uh.. so now the media is the agent of negative campaigning?

by TL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:11:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

They have helped her, yes.

But she pushed each of those stories on her very own.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

I am paying attention, and tonight's results confirm something that I've been thinking about for a while. People don't have to like someone to vote for them. Hillary's negatives are what they are, people don't like her. Certainly, people like Obama more than they like her. But, people don't necessarily vote for who they like.

They may think she's being negative, but that doesn't mean they don't think she's capable, ready, and a winner. I think Pennsylvanians proved this tonight.

You don't have to like someone to think they'll do a good job.

by VAAlex on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:08:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But GOSH-DARN IT! (2.00 / 1)

If that silly Clinton, who dares to go on because people are -- GASP! -- supporting her!

Those silly people, who have no hope!

How dare they stand in the way of Obama's coronation! This is insolence!

Hillary, for the good of the party, please, just step aside. We all want you to leave. No one wants you here. Certainly not the majority of Pennsylvanians who gave you that double-digit victory.

Not those silly people who just gave $1 million to your campaign in two hours tonight.

Why can't she just step aside? Things would just be so gosh-darned easier.

Then we could focus on more important issues. Like letting Obama eat waffles while he ignores questions. That's what politics is all about!

So, for the good of the punditocracy, er, the voters, please Hillary, no one wants you. Please go into the night.

:: rolls eyes ::

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:06:31 AM EST

by cuppajoe on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:10:10 AM EST

If only it would!

I was with a huge group of enthusiastic Hillary supporters this evening trying to get into the hotel ballroom to hear her. The atmosphere was electric and we were all quite hyped.

Nothing Olberthetop or Chris "Obama's Tingle Up My Leg" Matthews can say can dull the excitement and pure joy this evening brought to a lot of us.

Go Hillary!

You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat

You are right Olberman's head exploded and then he became Ogerman.

by indydem99 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:16:02 AM EST

Blaming Obama for not knocking her out (2.00 / 1)

I don't think we can blame Obama for Hillary being a superpower candidate. Just because she's going to lose in the long run doesn't mean a lot of people aren't going to vote for her on the way.

The argument that it is Obama's responsibility to knock Clinton out ignores a number of things.
1) Obama doesn't want to alienate Clinton voters for the general election, so he has been decidedly un-critical of her. Clinton doesn't share this concern about Obama voters.

2) One would think that having made it mathematically impossible for her to win would be enough to, essentially, force her out.

3) This is the Nader argument. Nader blames Gore for people voting for Nader. I mean, it's true in part, of course, that Obama hasn't been able to convince all Clinton supporters to vote for him. But this argument is motivated more by some kind of belief that horserace politics are a moral determinative. If your goal is electing a Democrat, you should believe that the person who is hurting the eventual Democratic nominee should stop hurting him. There is only so much he can do back.

by Jonmac on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:33:43 AM EST

Re: Blaming Obama for not knocking her out (2.00 / 3)

Sincerely, I'm afraid I missed the part where Obama is "uncritical" of Hillary. When I repeatedly see stories about OBama with the phrase "mocked Clinton", "ridiculed Clinton", etc., I just don't see him as being soft on her to keep her supporters from disliking him. His campaign in general has been rather ugly toward her.

The most damaging thing for Obama, as far as not alienating the Clinton supporters, has actually been many of his supporters. I see the damage they've done to Obama already, in making sure that Hillary's supporters will not vote for him. The attacks, the threats, the takeover of progressive sites, has damaged him in a big way with those that will have to vote for him if he gets the nomination.

Lately, the message I've been seeing from his supporters online is literally "we don't NEED Hillary's supporters in November", it's been said all over the place. That's foolhardy.

by Catriley sez on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:40:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Uncritical" (none / 0)

Saying that Obama has been "uncritical" is un-comprehensible. His WHOLE PITCH is that Hillary's experience makes her part of the problem; she's status quo, more of the same; she's part of The Old Way that he's arrived to transform into The New Way. He's been taking potshots at Bill Clinton since the beginning too. Critical. As he should be.

by FlipYrWhig on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:34:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blaming Obama for not knocking her out (none / 0)

Hmm. I suppose the grass is always less critical on your side of the fence. But it still seems to me that criticizing Hillary's campaign style (old politics, etc.) does far less long-term damage than her calling him elitist.

As for the surrogates, I admit I don't listen to them.

As for the internets, they are not representative of the electorate as a whole. The discourse that appears on liberal blogs does not reflect the conversations that anyone else has. Although I regret that bullying has taken place, I don't worry that the internet Obama supporters have done damage to Clinton, as internet Clinton voters are smart enough not to defect to McCain.

by Jonmac on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:52:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blaming Obama for not knocking her out (none / 0)

Yeah the only difference is that Obama never effectively endorsed the Republican nominee over Senator Clinton. If you don't see her touting her and McCain's "lifetime of experience" or their "passing the Commander-in-Chief threshold" as something very troublesome for a Democratic candidate to say, then my guess is you will be voting for McSame in November.

by wengler on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:10:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by demswin06 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:34:08 AM EST

Keith has always been like this. Every time Obama does something against either Clinton or Mc.Cain, Keith practically has an orgasm. He as bad as O'Reilly is.

by Catriley sez on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:35:24 AM EST

Perhaps Olbermann's head exploding could be a good thing. Everytime I see him, I can't help but notice that his eyes seem to be getting closer and closer together, as though all that indignation is.. well.. messing up his face. Perhaps this could sort of spread those features out again for him. Just sayin'

I'm quite certain that Mr. Predictable will have a breathless "special comment" tomorrow about the "racists" in Pennsylvannia. Count on it.

Re: Keith Olbermann's Head Explodes (2.00 / 1)

Why bother to watch these obama jerks. I turned of M
MSNBC, Olbermann and Matthews long ago. They just don't get it, the more they blast and chew away at Hillary in this campaign as they have thus far, it makes them all look like fools just blowing hot air.

Steven Shaman Publisher Skywatch-Media News

by steve468 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:37:01 AM EST

by zep93 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:21:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yep, pretty much sums up my feelings towards Clinton supporters these days.

Eyes on the Prize: Hillary 08

Todd,

Very well said! I used to think my father (Republican) was crazy for his insistence that MSNBC was biased, and I used to think that FOX served no purpose. But one of the things that this primary taught me, and this is a positive lesson that I will take regardless of who wins this nomination, is that the Left has media outlets that are just as irresponsible, and just as absurd, as the Right.

It has been very eye-opening.

Olbermann has been out of line for months and I hope that his pissing on half his audience comes back to haunt him. I might wind up voting for Barack Obama in November, but I will never support this man Keith Olbermann again.

Like I say: when politicians politick, that's just doing their job. Would-be journalists have NO excuse. We shouldn't embrace it just when it happens to suit our particular view at the moment: the failure of the fourth estate is destructive to democracy.

by bobbank on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:55:31 AM EST

by reggie44pride on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:52:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

the Left has media outlets that are just as irresponsible, and just as absurd, as the Right.

Yep. It's been that way for a while.

Truly "balanced" and non-partisian news is like finding a Jew in Saudi Arabia!

by MNPundit on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:14:27 AM EST

Why can't Hillary make up the margins on him? Why is she is still so too far behind?! Why can't she capitalize on her obvious experience and network of donors to beat this upstart?

See. I can do it too.

by Reluctantpopstar on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:31:16 AM EST

For that matter, the same thing can be asked on the other side: why can't Hillary Clinton seem to narrow Barack Obama's lead in pledged delegates?

Why can't SHE put this thing away?

Why, if she is winning primaries, can't she go ahead of Obama in pledged delegates?

How can she be expected to beat John McCain, if she can't beat Barack Obama, that "electoral weakling."?

She gained 6 delegates in this primary tonight. Excellent for her. That means that she will catch up to and pass Barack Obama in only...30 more primaries.

Just one problem with that. There's only, what, 6 more primaries?

You can't fight math.

Peace, S.

by miriam on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:38:54 AM EST

Someone at Talk Left just did the math and if Florida and Michigan are included Hillary is now ahead in popular vote count. I'm amazed that Obama supporters are still so cocky when it's clear the tide is turning.

Tides are cyclical, you know. (none / 0)

Hillary gained about 15 delegates and 200K votes on Obama in PA -- which he will regain in NC.

The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.

by Liberal Avenger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:48:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.

PS...In the real world, FL and MI aren't included, and won't be.

by Liberal Avenger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:56:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by johnnygunn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:15:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Which will likely mean that they go GOP in November and sink the Dems chances.

Do you know how many elections either party has won when it lost BOTH Florida and Michigan?

Zero.

The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.

My reply was too short. MI and FL will be included at the convention once the nomination has been officially settled for Obama. Hillary will just never get her mitts on the votes and delegates from those faux-primaries in a way that will do her any good.

by Liberal Avenger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:22:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keith Olbermann's Head Explodes (2.00 / 1)

My, my, my -
A little hostile towards Sen. Clinton tonite, eh?

by johnnygunn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:25:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]