Howard Dean: "The Worst Person in the World"?

As talked about in another thread, I figured this needed some expanding today. Howard Dean came out in support of the accusiation that the media has been using sexist biases in this campaign, from CBS News:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/02/ politics/horserace/entry4146386.shtml

There has been an enormous amount of sexism in this campaign on the part of the media, including the mainstream media...there have been major networks that have featured numerous outrageous comments that if the words were reversed and they were about race, the people would have been fired....What you don't get over is deep wounds that have been inflicted on somebody because they happen to be a woman running for president of the United States.

Of course, this is in the wake of Keith Olbermann's comments re: Katie Couric, who came out and spoke to the true nature of the sexism in the media:

"One of the great lessons of [Hillary Clinton's] campaign is the continued and accepted role of sexism in American life, particularly in the media....It isn't just Hillary Clinton who needs to learn a lesson from this primary season -- it's all the people who crossed the line, and all the women and men who let them get away with it."

Keith Olbermann of course called her comments "nonsense", while naming her one the "worst person in the world", saying that there had been no pronounced sexism in the media whatsoever. Funny you talk about that Keith, considering you're the one who wants to take Hillary out back and make sure she "doesn't come out". But sexism doesn't exist? Really?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/12 /katie-couric-is-rubber-an_n_106714.html

. Tucker Carlson's crossed legs, Mike Barnicle's ex-wife at a probate court, David Shuster's big pimpin', Chris Matthews' comment about why, exactly, Clinton had been a success or wondering if a guy would find it hard to debate a woman or even Olbermann himself, musing about a possible way to "convince" Hillary Clinton to exit the race (over a month before it was actually over, by the way). I mean, not only was there a petition protesting sexism at the network, there was an actual real-live protest against MSNBC in Washington. So what's that about "nonsense" there, Keith?

And I guess we'll find out about the true nature of Keith Olbermann tonight. Since Katie Couric deserved the mantle of "Worst person in the world" because of her editorial in regards to sexism in the media, I guess Howard Dean will have to deserve it as well, since the "sexism charge is nonsense". But that's what you get with a journalist who decrys the "hype" of the national media and then buys right into it with this incident. But the judgement comes down on Keith tonight. Calling out a reporter and the media because of sexism when the said correspondant stated that he was having a "hard time being objective" does not make you the "Worst person in the world", but being a sexist does, Keith. We'll find out who you are tonight, will you call out Howard Dean, or remain strangely silent...again?



Display:


Tips (2.00 / 14)

Not that I think I'll be getting many. This isn't too popular of a subject around these parts.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:19:29 PM EST

Re: Tips (2.00 / 3)


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:31:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips (2.00 / 1)

The truth is that sexism, racism, and yes ageism are not quantifiable. They are purely subjective. Some see them where others do not. This is not to say that those who see them are overly sensitive, or that those who do not are guilty of the same ism they do not see. Fact is, hundreds of different factors played into the primary and will in the general. To single out just one as determinate is intellectually dishonest. I'm not saying you are. I think that Keith has most decidedly been in the tank for Obama from the start. Fox News has been for McCain, and Andrea Mitchell, Joe Scarborough and others were in the tank for Hillary. You have to remember that these are pundits, not reporters. They are allowed to be biased.


by koliver on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:28:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips (2.00 / 1)

No one is singling out just one as determinate, they are just singling out one determinate. There is a difference in those two scenarios. And if that one determinate (out of many) is an unprogressive one, then you are being blinded by an immoral one.


by Sandeep on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 01:05:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You can count on the HillaryIs44 diehards... (none / 0)

... to flock over and recommend any diary that continues to promote false excuses for Hillary Clinton's loss to Barack Obama.


Ignorance is weakness. Get strong.
by tbetz on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 05:43:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"The Worst Person in the World"? (2.00 / 10)

Get your facts right. Keith O's WPINW rating for Couric was because she was trashing a fellow reporter, not because he was denying sexism.


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband
by venician on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:21:37 PM EST

Re: "The Worst Person in the World"? (2.00 / 11)

Then I guess he shouldn't have gone on to talk about how the "sexism charge" is nonsense, right?

You people really need to open your eyes. Olbermann doesn't deserve to have a job.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:25:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "The Worst Person in the World"? (1.57 / 7)

If blogging was a job, you wouldnt deserve it either.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:31:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think Kieth is right (1.77 / 9)

Clinton tried to play the sexism card because her numbers among women weren't as strong as she needed.

With AA supporting Obama 90/10 she needed similar numbers among women.

The Clintonites produced a video proving rampant sexism that was 8 minutes long with one of the sexist morons being shown several times.

So, cable news alone...

3 (channels) x 18 (hours per day programming) x 60 (minutes per hour) x 100 (days in a primary)

324000 minutes of coverage and all they have is 8 minutes of clips, many of the same person, many repeated, and many not even sexist (pimping out Chelsea).

Howard dean sees half the party, after being fed a campaign tactic, believing Hillary was treated unfairly by the media, he is just trying to heal some wounds.

Yes sexism exists. No Hillary wasn't a victim of it.

The nutcracker is a good example imo.

When Hillary was projecting a strong inevitable posture everyone loved the nutcracker because it fit with being tough.

As soon as she needed to appeal to women and project that soft human side the nutcracker was the worst example of misogyny seen since suffrage.


by Is This Snark on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:46:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Kieth is right (2.00 / 13)

Wow, "everyone loved the nutcracker"?  Holy shit.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:14:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Olbermann is a CLOWN (1.75 / 12)

Sexism, while definately present (per MSNBC & KO), should not obscure what really took Clinton down: race-bating.

The new kid on the block accused the former president and first lady of race-bating. While 2 of the 3 most influential pastors in Obama's life were ripping the Clinton's with race-bating rhetoric, his staff was circulating emails to all the media claming race-bating conduct from the Clinton's. It worked!

Hillary did the right thing. She absorbed the race-bating charges and endorsed Obama anyway. She's a better person than I am. I would have blown a fuse and taken the head off of anyone who accused me of such dispicable bahavior. But, that's why I'm not in politics.


by mmorang on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:32:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sad (1.85 / 7)

Clinton was beaten soundly and fairly.

Inside game and outside game.

Everyone looking for an 'ISM' to blame for the Clinton meltdown should look no further than Narcissism, and its related symptoms.


by Is This Snark on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:38:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad (2.00 / 4)

Obama was considered the likely winner of the Democratic primary by the end of February. Yet, he's lost the popular vote since then by over half a million votes.

He was supposed to win SD but lost. He out spent Hillary 4-1 in OH, TX, PA and lost them all badly. Indiana is 15 minutes from his house, they get TV signals from IL and Obama couldn't even win that.

We nominated a weak candidate. The SD's were afraid of pissing off the AA community, that's why they gave the nomination to Obama.

Without his money advantage he would have lost easily. He engaged in race-bating, not good for party unity. He won, but at what cost? We'll find out soon enough.


by mmorang on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:51:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad (1.85 / 7)

IF IF IF.

Obama won. He will win the GE.

Until he doesn't the rest is concern trolling.


by Is This Snark on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:57:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad (1.20 / 5)

God "Bless" America!

IF Obama had left the church 20 years ago

IF Obama had not decided to tar the former President of the United States and former First Lady with false race-bating charges

IF Michelle Obama had developed a pride in the country BEFORE her husband started winning primaries

IF IF IF


by mmorang on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:01:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Concern noted (1.85 / 7)

Please, Redstate is that way ====>. Go troll there, they'll love you.
by Gene In PA on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:06:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Concern noted (2.00 / 1)

For the record, I'm not "concerned" at all.


by mmorang on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:44:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

lol pull a loose thread.... (1.75 / 4)

and the whole pretense unravels.

What you concern trolls ignore is the simple fact that INCLUDING you and the concern troll legion you claim to represent, Obama is ALREADY AHEAD in the polls.

And WAY AHEAD in the Electoral College, almost 40+.

So it seems a statistically insignificant group of bottom feeders on 'our side' are deluding themselves into believing others should give a fuck what they think.

Especially when they take shots at Michelle Obama. A true spokesperson for modern feminism.

Smart. Successful. Passionate. Ambitious. Loving.

Only scum take shots at her.


by Is This Snark on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:11:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lol pull a loose thread.... (2.00 / 2)

You can't make any critism of Michelle Obama (who I generally like) but you can trash Bill and Hillary Clinton 24/7?

Ok, sure. Whatever.


by mmorang on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:42:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lol pull a loose thread.... (2.00 / 0)

How do you know if he's ahead in the electoral vote?

Have you heard of the Bradley Affect? It's where a polster calls up someone and asks them who they will be voting for and the person say's the black candidate even though they don't plan on voting for them...because they don't want to appear as racists.

You have no idea how Obama is doing against McCain. You certainly don't know how he will do in the swing states. The Republicans haven't even opened up an attack on Obama yet so you don't know what impact it will have.

What you should know is that nominees who appear to be very liberal get beaten badly in the general election.


by mmorang on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:49:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lol pull a loose thread.... (2.00 / 4)

You don't mean "affect" you mean "effect".

The Bradley effect tends to be a localized, chronographically and geographically, phenomena and it is just a little of a stretch to try and apply it whole scale to a national stage over multiple periods of time.

We can safely say, looking at the tracking polls and the multiple instances of different data that Obama at this stage is leading McCain. If the election was held today Obama would very likely be our next president.

Of course we have about 5 months to go and things can change, but we no longer can say with any level of certainty if one of the former contenders for the Dem nomination would do better against McCain then the other. It is all baseless suposition and yelling at this point.


by notedgeways on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:07:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lol pull a loose thread.... (none / 0)

Ever hear of typos? I make them all the time. You still got my point and obviously couldn't adequately counter it so you reverted to correcting spelling.


by mmorang on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:07:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is a whole different (none / 0)

word.

I make plenty of typos myself, but the affect/effect  one grates on my nerves so I mention it, sorry eh?


by notedgeways on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:58:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad (2.00 / 2)

We nominated a weak candidate? WTF?

Look up at the top left of the home page here and see that the current electoral forecast has Obama obliterating McCain. I smell sour grapes.


by mikeplugh on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 01:58:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad (none / 0)

Watch the campaign unfold and learn.

Remember, Obama has an unheard of money advantage, the Republicans are as popular as colon cancer and they are running a corpse. Obama couldn't ask for a better scenario than this. Let's see how he does in this slam-dunk election.

If he doesn't put Hillary on the ticket I predict that the corpse will win.


by mmorang on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:10:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad (none / 0)

Snore. You trolls bore me.


by mikeplugh on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:07:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad (2.00 / 1)

Actually she was beaten very narrowly. Depending on whose count you take she either got a 100,000 more votes than him or 100,000 less and that was in a total of something like 36 million votes cast. In delegates he ended about 150 ahead in 4500. That hardly sounds like beaten soundly but we know theres something of need to cast it all as a landslide. So spare us the pop psychology and stick to the facts.


by ottovbvs on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:37:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sad (2.00 / 1)

She was not beaten fairly.  She was beaten by an anachronistic caucus system and by a DNC organization determined to front a 2 yr senator over a female Clinton.  That simple.


by hairspray on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:31:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm shocked (2.00 / 5)

"Everyone liked the nutcracker when her numbers were good"???????????  
Gee, I didn't....none of my close female friends liked it....ever....and none of my female relatives liked it....ever.

So if everyone liked it.....does that make us "no one" ........oh yea, we're women.  Clearly, from your comment, you don't really think much of women.


by Jjc2008 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:40:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh Bullshit. (1.10 / 10)

Find me a single article by a feminist decrying the nutcracker before hillary started losing.

You can't.

Hillary fucking signed them on the campaign trail.

Her staff had them on their desks.

Take no shit Hillary.

Busting the right wing nuts for decades.

Fuck off with the fake outrage and phony cries of sexism.

Lowering the bar insults the real victims.


by Is This Snark on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:46:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Back at you (1.28 / 7)

you crude excuse for an intelligent being.

Curse and scream to your heart's content.  If you represent Obama and the new progressives, then for sure many of us are done....


by Jjc2008 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:55:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

great (1.50 / 6)

good by.

We don't need to fight fake fights to heal Clinton supporters sadness.

We have REAL villains that need our energies to fight.

Why would I spend time pretending there is any validity to these claims?


by Is This Snark on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:00:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh Bullshit. (2.00 / 3)

Way, way over the top response.  Take a deep breath and settle down before you hit post.


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:09:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh Bullshit. (2.00 / 0)

What is wrong with you people can't talk about this without resorting to obscenities. Well I suppose it's a substitute of sorts for facts.    


by ottovbvs on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:38:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh Bullshit. (2.00 / 2)

A little more time beefing up your vocabulary would help.  You seem to only know the f word which tells me your age and your IQ.


by hairspray on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:38:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Kieth is right (2.00 / 2)

Great comment!

Serious comment.


by IsThisSnarkFan on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:43:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Kieth is right (1.00 / 1)

idiot


by gorgias on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:55:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Kieth is right (none / 0)

Wow everyone loved the nutcracker!!

Including you I guess. I know I am immoral that's why I loved the nutcracker but I didnt know that you are immoral too, one who doesnt have respect for women and one who is a closet sexist.

Sad, unless you are not part of "everyone".

And then you claim to be a Democrat!! LOL.


by Sandeep on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 01:10:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The sexism charge ABOUT THAT ONE GUY (2.00 / 4)

Seriously, Keith is so much on our side. Please stop looking for any excuse to attack him.


by 2501 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:12:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The sexism charge ABOUT THAT ONE GUY (2.00 / 3)

Keith is "on our side" because at the present time, being on our side is getting great ratings for MSNBC.
He posts a diary over at Kos and it gets hundreds of comments. It also increases his audience and hikes his ratings.
If you haven't learned anything over the last 16 years, learn this: Don't trust the media.
by skohayes on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:31:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

KO is the biggest panerer I've ever seen (2.00 / 6)

He sees a comment from KOS stating that one of his guests made an unflattering remard about Edwards. Olbermann writes a diary for KOS saying he was unaware of it and that he would appologize for it on air. He did just that, he appologized....for what I have no idea.

The guest was Democrat Lawrence O'donald. His comment was that Edwards endorsement was irrevelant. Agree or disagree, he has a right to his opinion and no one would die if they heard it. But Olbermann is such a panderer he had to let Kossacks know he was on their side and wouldn't let the mistake happen again.

I found the whole thing pretty scary. I prefer jounalists who have balls, are independent and tell it as they see it. Olbermann is pathetic and Murrow must be spinning in his grave that such a clown is pretending to be him and failing miserably.


by mmorang on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:40:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You found it scary (1.66 / 6)

Because you only understood a tiny portion of what went on.

Not surprising you know only enough to let you magnify your bad feelings for him.

He apologized for having the guest on without challenging him on outrageous comments made earlier that day.

He apologized for not having known about the comments and agreed the comments, had they been known, would have given the guest's opinion far less weight.


by Is This Snark on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:54:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I find it sad... (2.00 / 5)

How we are so ready to eat our own.  You won't find Republicans turning on Fox News.  You don't see diaries making it to the top of the rec list dogging party leaders.

This is why we lose elections.
This is why we can't impeach a president with clear war crimes.
This is why we can't bring our troops home.

Instead of rallying the base, we turn on each other.
Instead of writing a helpful letter to Keith (one where we know he will respond and try to correct his ways) we make hit pieces and trash his girlfriend.
Instead of supporting Dean and suggesting ways the DNC can fight sexism and any other ism, we make him the Worst Person In The World.
Instead of fighting sexism and against, "Baby Momma." we instead attack MSNBC.  The only news source brave enough to have Keith Olbermann on.
Instead of working toghether we allow people like Alegre to create party divides and long lived feuds.
Instead of calling out trolls, we promote them to the top of the rec list.
Instead of a serious discussion about sexism, we complain that Keith didn't call out Dean, who didn't do enough in the first place.

This is why we lose.  Think about it.


by IsThisSnarkFan on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:05:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I find it sad... (2.00 / 5)

I'm not a troll, and I refuse to support hypocrisy and sexism, ESPECALLY if it comes from my side of the aisle. The reason why I'm a Democrat and not a Republican is because I don't appreciate the "lock step" attitude of the GOP. I will call out tacky fools like Olbermann if I please, and I will not listen to people telling me to sit down and shut up.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:41:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I find it sad... (2.00 / 2)

Good luck with that.


by IsThisSnarkFan on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:28:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And what was this outragous comment? (2.00 / 0)

Please inform us of this outragous comment that occured earlier in the day.

Isn't it absurd to think that a TV personality would have to KNOW EVERYTHING that one of his guests might have said during the day? Of course it is.

Why would this lame panderer apologize for not grilling Lawrence O'donnel over something he was unaware of? Ridiculous.


by mmorang on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:09:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hate on in ignorance if you choose. (1.50 / 2)


by Is This Snark on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:15:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hate on in ignorance if you choose. (1.00 / 2)

You conceded the "argument". I accept your appology.


by mmorang on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:23:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So what then? (1.80 / 5)

Attack him while he is making our points to a larger audience?

You make no sense. You are complaining that he is successful.


by Is This Snark on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:41:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So what then? I'll tell you what (2.00 / 2)

He should keep his mouth shut and not be an attack dog against one candidate in a Democratic primary and a chearleader for another.

He should at least attempt to be fair to both sides and have the same criteria for both candidates.

He's a joke and I have NO respect for him. He attacked Hillary for running a mild ad that Democrats have run against other Democrats for decades. Was he born yesterday? No. Is he stupid? No. What he is is an unprincipled partisan hack.


by mmorang on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:21:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So what then? I'll tell you what (none / 0)

You said it "unprincipled partisan hack".

And we have people in here taking pride in being that. I hope they are Republicans because if they are Democrats, we are seeing the beginning of corruption.


by Sandeep on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 01:24:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

OUR SIDE?????? (2.00 / 4)

So did I miss the memo of who gets to decide what OUR SIDE is????   Last I looked, liberals were tolerant of differences but intolerant of sexism, racism....any of the isms that hurt people.


by Jjc2008 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:41:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The sexism charge ABOUT THAT ONE GUY (2.00 / 4)

whose side?  not on my side


by gorgias on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:56:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He's only on his side- and played all of you for (2.00 / 1)

ratings ONLY1 He's obssessed with O'Reilly - he's wanted to best him since day one and has never done so. He mistakenly calculated that getting on the Obama band wagon, his "young" supporters would gravitate to him, which most of you did, but the flaw in his thinking was that he did not realize that close to an equal number would leave and go to Fox where surprisingly the reporting was more fair and balanced towards Clinton.

I, for one, have my cable box on Fox from 6:00pm to 11 p.m - I don't even watch most of the time and have become a news vip where I'm polled about msnbc about every 3 weeks.

O'Reilly posted his ratings a couple of nights ago: they have increased 300% at 8:00pm and over 100% at 11:00p.m. re-broadcast - I guess KO little plan backfired on him and I'm very glad! He's an egomaniac "poseur" of the worse kind!


by suzieg on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:55:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Playing the perpetual victim (2.00 / 3)

is not the best way to win a popularity contest.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:19:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ignoring reality when (2.00 / 3)

it includes blatant sexism, racism or any other hurtful ism does not bode well for any of us.


by Jjc2008 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:42:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great let's talk about racism in the MSM (2.00 / 1)

and then we can compare and see who is suffering the most victimness from it.

Conservatism
Liberalism
Racism
Sexism

So many ism's to choose from.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:04:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great let's talk about racism in the MSM (none / 0)

It's not a question of who is suffering the most (that is a victim mentality which you were crying against 2 posts above surprisingly), it's a question of rejecting any "ism" flat out in an equal manner.


by Sandeep on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 01:28:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wait a minute zcflint05 (2.00 / 4)

Wait just a minute here, zcflint05. Let's start by getting our facts straight.

First, let me say that I am not dismissing all of the sexism charges, because I am sure that if so many people feel they are that there must at least be some.

But what Couric was talking about was a MSNBC embed reporter for the Obama campaign, Lee Cowen, who said that at times he felt that he had to pull himself back from getting swept up in all the excitement from all of the Obama supporters in those large arenas.

And Katie Couric's message to him was to get in a new line of work.

No matter what your feelings are about the sexism, Couric's snide remark to a good reporter was out of bounds.

And that is the reason Keith put her in TWPITW category.


by DaveDial on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:05:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean: (2.00 / 5)

Well, I for one will be waiting to see what he does. Altho, I haven't watched this clown in a very long time. rec'ced ya :)


by linfar on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:25:16 PM EST

Re: Howard Dean: (2.00 / 11)

Lin, Couric was out line and Keith called her on it, she had no reason to trash a journalist for being objective, something she fails to grasp.

Lin, please watch the above videos.   I am not saying to fall in love with Keith, but understand that if you believe in unity you need to try and support our public platforms.

You can also write POSITIVE letters to NBC suggesting programming that might suit you.

Thanks for reading lin.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:34:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean: (2.00 / 7)

You know, I don't like it when Fox presents biased propaganda as news, why is it any better because the propaganda supports Democrats?
Why can't we just have objective, intelligent people who report the news? Why is that so hard for the networks to grasp?
by skohayes on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:33:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean: (none / 0)

Because the alternative is for the left to have no voice like the situation was before Keith got the Countdown slot.

That's what lead to the Iraq war in the first place because there was no mainstream voice speaking out against it. Well there was one and they canned him so there wouldn't be any.

You don't have to agree with everything KO has to say but I do suggest recognizing the reality that his presence helps to balance out the opposition. Even so it's no where near balanced because the Right has an entire channel blatantly in the bag for them and the rest of the other news orgs mostly in it.

Attacking KO as a leftist is shooting oneself in the foot.


by Skex on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:32:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you honestly believe (2.00 / 5)

your pov, KO's pov and his interpretation of the events are the only way to be.  Are you truly a progressive, a liberal?  Seriously, how do get off on telling us what should or should not offend.  Olberman has been offensive to women on more than one occasion.
If progressives want groupthink perhaps they are in the wrong party.
by Jjc2008 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:45:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He had to say something after the barrage of (none / 0)

comments he probably received from the million of furious women! Ignoring their complaints would not have been the way of getting them back!


by suzieg on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:57:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Keith O's lost me. (2.00 / 4)

To deny there's sexism in the media?  That's just stupid.


John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!
by kosnomore on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:35:49 PM EST

Re: Keith O's lost me. (2.00 / 7)

When did he deny there was sexism in the media?

Please just give me one quote


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:37:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's a quote: (2.00 / 3)

"It is sad that Ms. Couric could not have emulated [Cowan] and separated the hype from the news in her own promulgation of the nonsense that Senator Clinton was a victim of pronounced sexism."

Wish I could highlight but you can figure it out. ........
he called Katie's view NONSENSE.  Now last time I looked people, even Katie Couric, even women without  a famous name, had the right to a pov.  But according to the almighty KO our views are NONSENSE.
Insulting?  Damn straight. Sexist.  It came off that way to a lot of us....he is denying there was pronounced sexism ...whatever the hell that means.

Is a little sexism tolerable?  A little racism? Who gets to decide what's a little, what's a lot, what's pronounced or not pronounced?
If the shock jocks of radio who had the IRON MY SHIRT placards instead had "SHINE MY SHOES" placards when Obama was talking, would that have been a "little bit of racism" or "pronounced."  Would people tell African Americans to get over it ..it was just some radio guys trying to get attention.  Would there have been some giggles at the sign?  

You wanted a quote. You got it. Spin and excuse the good old boys of MSNBC all you want. Some of us just won't.


by Jjc2008 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:10:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keith O's lost me. (2.00 / 7)

he didn't deny it. he said that Couric was off-base in her comments about one particular NBC News reporter, and he clearly spelled out exactly what he meant.


by 2501 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:10:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean? (2.00 / 6)

Move along now, troll.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:40:47 PM EST

Re: Howard Dean? (none / 0)

 such self confidence in anonymity isn't there?


by gorgias on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:58:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean? (2.00 / 1)

Because your very screenname advocates voting for the Republican nominee.  With a handle like that, get used to the Hidden Comments section.


John McCain: He flunked ECON 101.
by Shem on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:53:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean? (2.00 / 5)

You are highly amusing. Do you do this comedy routine often?


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband
by venician on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:41:04 PM EST

Re: Howard Dean? (2.00 / 1)

Oh, it gets better.
Clintonite4McCain supports torture:

It means first and foremost, staying in Iraq and Afghanistan until the job is done.  It means taking on Iran head on.  It means not supporting those who would weaken our troops by publicly opposing our policies, keeping dissent responsible.

I oppose amnesty for telecoms, but support warrantless wiretapping with a new bill, support data mining to find terrorists.  I strongly support Gitmo and using torture if need be to get information that will keep Americans safe.

I also opposed the Supreme Court ruling yesterday, the Constitution IMO only holds for citizens and legal immigrants, not for enemy combatants and terrorists.  There need not be any trial of any kind of them

This troll needs to go...


by skohayes on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:37:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wonder... (none / 0)

if he/she knows that American citizens and nationals can be labeled terrorists and enemy combatants.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:37:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The infamous remark of William Kristol (2.00 / 4)

as the white woman (while discussing HRC & the Dem primary process) being the source of all problems on Sunday morning show..with Juan Williams and the rest of the Fox idiots laughing away..


by louisprandtl on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:45:11 PM EST

Actually the correct quote was (1.85 / 7)


BILL KRISTOL: Look the only people for Hillary Clinton are the Democratic establishment and white women... it would be crazy for the Democratic party to follow the establishment that's led them to defeat year after year... White Women are a problem - but, you know... we all live with that...

[Hume, Williams, Wallace, Liaison crack up]

JUAN WILLIAMS: not me...

HUME: For the record, I like white women.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/03 bill-kristol-white-women-are-a-problem

Mara Liaison unfortunately was so pathetic..couldn't even understand how her own standing just got belittled in National TV.


by louisprandtl on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:48:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

highly rec'd. (2.00 / 4)


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:05:53 PM EST

now, let's not selectively quote (2.00 / 8)

KO said her comments about a particular NBC News reporter were inaccurate. He gave great detail about what the particular reporter had said and in what context, versus the way that Couric had portrayed it.

KO did not say she was incorrect to state there was sexism in the race. PLEASE STOP ACTING AS IF HE DID.


by 2501 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:09:26 PM EST

It's makes a certain group (2.00 / 7)

here very happy, to pretend and exaggerate.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:23:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong, wrong wrong (2.00 / 4)

KO did not say she was incorrect to state there was sexism in the race. PLEASE STOP ACTING AS IF HE DID.

Wrong.  That's exactly what he said. Yes, Olbermann went to great lengths to defend Lee Cowan, but he also said is was nonsense that Sen. Clinton had been the target of sexism:

It is sad that Ms. Couric could not have emulated him and separated the hype from the news in her own promulgation of the nonsense that Senator Clinton was a victim of pronounced sexism.

Clear enough for you? He just said that that the the idea that Senator Clinton was the victim of sexism was promulgating nonsense.  Should I type in all caps to make it understood?

I don't know why so many people are going to such great lengths to say that Olbermann didn't outright dismiss the idea of sexism as part of the campaign, when it's crystal clear that exactly what he did. Watch it for yourself here.

Howard Dean is 100% right, and Keith Olbermann isn't doing us any favors by being a gas bag whop happens to support Obama.  He doesn't get a free pass for that.


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:06:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Target" and "Victim" are... (2.00 / 3)

different words which have very important distinctions for this debate.  Noone can dispute that she was a "target" of sexism in the media; there are too many examples of it.  People are saying that she was not a "victim" of sexism in the media.  In the sense that she did not lose due to sexism in the media.  That's what he was saying was "nonsense."  That fact would become clearer if you read more than just that one sentence.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:43:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Target" and "Victim" (2.00 / 1)

I read the whole thing (and watched it) several times.  Did you?  Here's the whole thing:

And our winner, Katie Couric. Speaking at a Washington luncheon in her honor, the CBS anchor saying, "However you feel about politics," or her politics, rather, "I feel that Senator Clinton received some of the most unfair hostile coverage I`ve ever seen." She added that sexism "contributed in part to the Senator's defeat."

A little Kool-Aid-ish, but her opinion and she`s entitled to it. What followed she was not entitled to. Couric referred to one, quote, "prominent member of the commentariat" who had said he found it hard to be objective when it came to Obama. "That's your job," she says. Then she suggested he "find another line of work."

She didn't name him, maybe because she didn't bother to look it up. But the supposed member of the "commentariat" who said that was not, in fact, a commentator. It was NBC News correspondent Lee Cowan, who covered the Obama campaign throughout the primaries, and who, as Ms. Couric would have found out had she bothered to examine the context of his remark, was speaking with refreshing honesty, acknowledging that the environment of that campaign and the ferocity of the candidate`s supporters in the primaries challenged a reporter to be especially professional and vigilant in separating the hype from the news.

I probably saw literally 90 percent of Lee Cowan`s reporting in this campaign, and it was utterly objective and accurate. It is sad that Ms. Couric could not have emulated him and separated the hype from the news in her own promulgation of the nonsense that Senator Clinton was a victim of pronounced sexism. And as to her advice that a reporter like Lee Cowan, who was her colleague at CBS for nearly a year, should find another line of work, it is sadly obvious that in leaving NBC and the Today Show, Ms. Couric already has. Katie Couric, today's "Worst Person in the World."

Where exactly did Mr. Olbermann make that magical distinction between being a target and a victim?


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:06:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He didn't have to... (2.00 / 2)

it's a distinction inherent in the use of the term "victim."  Furthermore, that this '"I feel that Senator Clinton received some of the most unfair hostile coverage I`ve ever seen." She added that sexism "contributed in part to the Senator's defeat..."' is the comment to which he was referring the distinction is obvious.  She was saying that sexism led to Clinton's defeat.  Olbermann was calling that statement "Kool-Aid-ish" and "nonsense."  This really isn't that complicated.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 02:41:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He didn't have to... (none / 0)

She added that sexism "contributed in part to the Senator's defeat..."' is the comment to which he was referring the distinction is obvious.  She was saying that sexism led to Clinton's defeat.

Interesting that you chose to leave out Couric's next two words from your quote. She didn't say "contributed in part to the Senator's defeat..."', as you claim, she said:

Sexism led to Clinton's defeat * in part*.  That's what Olbermann called nonsense, and he was absolutely wrong. Howard Dean sees it.  Why can't Olbermann?

If you can't make your point without editing someone's words, your point clearly isn't valid.


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:38:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's not what Dean said. (2.00 / 1)

"There has been an enormous amount of sexism in this campaign on the part of the media, including the mainstream media," Dean said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos". "We'll leave present company excepted, because I think that's true. But there have been major networks that have featured numerous outrageous comments that if the words were reversed and they were about race, the people would have been fired."

Note that Dean never said that sexism had anything to do with Clinton's loss.

Was there a lot of sexism?  Yes.  There are certainly a lot of examples of it, including in the media.  I'm thinking Iron My Shirt, I'm thinking Monica Lewinsky Helped Her, I'm thinking Crocodile Tears.

Did sexism have anything to do with Clinton's loss?  No.  Most of the attacks were coming from Republicans and media pundits and had little effect on liberals and Democrats who largely discarded sexism decades ago.  On balance the attacks probably helped her by increasing passion and turnout among women who make up a significant majority of Democratic primary voters.

That's an extremely simple and consistent position, and one that is shared by both Howard Dean and Keith Olbermann.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 02:03:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Simple distinction: (2.00 / 3)

If I am the "target" of a homicidal maniac, I might still be alive.  If I am the "victim" of a homicidal maniac, I'm probably not.

"Victim" implies a successful attack.  "Target" doesn't imply either success or failure--just that there was an attack.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 02:53:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So you are walking down the street (none / 0)

And you are attacked by a rapist.
You fight him, claw him and still he overpowers you.  You continue to fight him instead of pretending to give in.......and for your trouble, not only get raped, you get beaten.

Are you victim if you fight back and still lose?  Or a target?  

You are implying that even if someone fights back and loses they are as much a victim as someone who concedes.  I don't get what you are saying at all.


by Jjc2008 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:28:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, you're a victim (2.00 / 1)

Just as much as someone who didn't fight back...  Victim is a descriptive word, not a pejorative.

I'm suddenly confused though.  Under your yet-narrower definition of the word "victim," you should be agreeing even more with Olbermann that it's "ridiculous" to say that Clinton was a victim of sexism in the media, because she sure as hell fought back.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:07:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can we assume then (none / 0)

that you will be defending Michelle when she is the target of attacks?


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:08:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

As I did when Hillary was attacked...n/t (none / 0)


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 07:21:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: now, let's not selectively quote (2.00 / 2)

First of all, STOP SHOUTING, and second, do us all a favor and read what Keith actually said before you spout lies.  


by MMR2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:37:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why give that Clown any credit, he's full of it (2.00 / 6)

KO is a clown and he is obviously not any more interested in being fair or balanced then FOX news. He's a gun for hire and he's found his niche market.

He gets just as mad at Hillary for running an embarrasingly mild ad that Democrats have run against fellow Democrats for decades as he does about George Bush trampling on the constitution.

Again, he's a clown. A rich clown but a clown nonetheless.


by mmorang on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:25:10 PM EST

Re: Howard Dean: (2.00 / 3)

Just wondering when this blog is going to get over the primary season...Keith Olbermann is not the problem by any stretch.


by RickD on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:36:30 PM EST

Once more (2.00 / 5)

Once more, though I'm sure it's been repeated extensively above.

What Olbermann was referring to as nonsense was the assertion that sexism was the primary reason for Hillary's loss. He acknowledged that it was an opinion, and one with which he didn't agree, before moving on to his main point: Couric's unfair attack on a fellow journalist.

To deny there is sexism in American culture (and hence in American media) would be delusional.

However, to assert that sexism was the lone determining factor in the outcome of an election requires at the least a standard of evidence which nobody's yet put forth.


"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it." -- Dr. Horrible
by BobzCat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:38:20 PM EST

Here's the quote: (2.00 / 3)

"It is sad that Ms. Couric could not have emulated [Cowan] and separated the hype from the news in her own promulgation of the nonsense that Senator Clinton was a victim of pronounced sexism."

Calling another person's view NONSENSE does not speak highly of KO's journalistic skills.  
Explain "pronounced" sexism.  Is a unpronounced or just a little sexism OK???? A little racism OK???

Stop defending the indefensible..when the left wing excuses bad behavior we are in trouble.


by Jjc2008 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:12:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Once more (2.00 / 4)

Once more, Couric never said that sexism was the primary cause for Clinton's loss.  Even Olbermann didn't allege that.  He quoted her directly:

 She added that sexism "contributed in part to the Senator's defeat."

You're arguing an issue that doesn't exist.  Couric didn't, as you said, " assert that sexism was the lone determining factor in the outcome of an election".  She said it contributed in part, and Olbermann called that nonsense.  Yes, he went after about Lee Cowan, but he also completely dismissed the idea that sexism had anything to do with Clinton's loss.  That's just as ridiculous as believing that racism had nothing to do with Obama's loss in West Virginia. In both cases, these "ism's" weren't the primary reason, but they were certainly in effect.


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:14:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wouldn't Olbermann vote for McCain over Clinton (none / 0)

after all, he said that she was absolutely unqualified for the presidency after her RFK remark.  So, given his opinion that Hillary is completely unqualified for the presidency given such imprudent remark, we would have to conclude that he would vote for a guy who pretty much disagrees with him on every issue over Clinton if that scenario presented itself.

This guy let his hatred for Hillary Clinton consume him; putting that aside, the guy is pretty good.  I'm hoping for Maddow's own show soon; she would draw better ratings than either Matthews or Gregory.


by Blazers Edge on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:53:59 PM EST

parroting the Obama aide memo to the press? (none / 0)


by suzieg on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:01:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dean deserves worst person. (2.00 / 2)

But not for the reason you think.  And Katie Couric was called it for a different reason then you think as well.  So you are exceptional at missing the point.

Here is the reason why Dean deserves it:

If Dean believed that sexism, was uniquely skewing the media coverage in a way that had an impact. And from his strong language he is certainly implying it did.  The time for him to speak out against it was when it was happening, before the contest was decided.  To fail to speak out about it in his DNC leadership position is a terrible thing.   If however he has chosen to talk about it now just as a sop to the Hillary supporters than he is the worst person for a different reason.  Regardless he is not running for office, and has a responsibility to talk to us as adults.  If he saw it and failed to respond he is guilty.  If he did not see it but is trying to be politically correct, accepting an accepted narrative as true he is still guilty.

I disagree with what he said here.  But his leadership has been lacking during this primary season.


Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ~ Sun Tzu
by Tumult on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:57:38 PM EST

i cant believe that i am about to say this... (none / 0)

but i completely agree with you.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:53:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i cant believe that i am about to say this... (none / 0)

I try to be consistent.  And I do not disagree with you on the worthiness of your war, just on what battles you are choosing.


Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ~ Sun Tzu
by Tumult on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:47:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm happy to see... (2.00 / 1)

...that Howard Dean can still inspire that much fear and loathing in republicans.

Thank you very much,

You made my day.


by DawnG on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:06:17 PM EST

hawkish is one thing. (none / 0)

brazenly stupid is another.

It's all well and good to be strong but it's idiotic to go looking for fights.

Sure, carry the big stick, but walk softly.


by DawnG on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:36:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean: "The Worst Person i (2.00 / 6)

KO is a hypocrite.  He went after Katie Couric because it was obvious that she was talking about him when she said "commentariat."  


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:19:07 PM EST

The absurd ratings abuse in this thread (2.00 / 1)

is staggering.


by notedgeways on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:11:25 PM EST

Wow, you take the medal (2.00 / 3)

I don't think I've ever seen so much concentrated wrong in a single paragraph before in my life, outside of TimeCube.

Keith Olbermann of course called her comments "nonsense", while naming her one the "worst person in the world", saying that there had been no pronounced sexism in the media whatsoever. Funny you talk about that Keith, considering you're the one who wants to take Hillary out back and make sure she "doesn't come out". But sexism doesn't exist? Really?


  • Olbermann never declared that "sexism doesn't exist" nor that there was no sexism against Clinton in the media.  He said it was "nonsense" that sexism played any significant role in losing her the nomination race.

  • The "worst person in the world" medal went to Couric because she criticized a fellow journalist's objectivity and integrity using a quote taken completely out of context.

  • The quote is "into a back room" not "out back"--there's a pretty substantial difference there.

  • He said that a Democratic leader should do that, not that he wanted to do it himself.

  • He was of course just suggesting they go into a back room and tell her firmly "it's over"... not that they kill her.

But hey.  By all means.  You need a scapegoat, you need some metaphorical Lucifer stand-in to accept all your ire and all your fury.  I'm sure Keith Olbermann will be perfectly willing to serve in that role, as long as it ensures we never hear the words "President John McCain."


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 12:22:13 AM EST

Every failure needs an excuse. (2.00 / 2)


by Beren on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 02:15:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Olbermann makes me sick (2.00 / 1)

for a lot of reasons--but the self-righteous, "outrage" shtick got old in a hurry, and when he twisted Hillary's comment about June not being too late for an undecided primary (with reference to a date boomers would remember/RFK's assassination) into a death wish for Obama, he lost me forever.

To suggest that sexism didn't play a majhor role in the coverage of the Clinton campaign is delusional.  
In an election that close, there may be many reasons f