'Keith-ing it.'

Update [2008-6-13 1:41:2 by canadian gal]: I encourage you all to watch the videos below so that you can construe the comments on your own. I will also add that the purpose of this diary is to point out KO's use of the word 'nonsense.'

On Wednesday, CBS' Katie Couric was honored by the Sewall-Belmont House and Museum at their Alice Award Luncheon Gala. She was recognized for "her remarkable career in news media, her ground breaking role as the first female solo anchor of a weekday network evening broadcast and her tireless advocacy for colorectal cancer screening, which has helped save the lives of countless men and women each year" (according to a release).

At the event, Couric weighed in on the media treatment in the primary.  'However you feel about her politics, I feel that Sen. Clinton received some of the most unfair, hostile coverage I've ever seen.' She went on to say that latent sexism contributed, in part, to Hillary's defeat.  She referred to one "prominent member of the commentariat" who said he "found it hard to be objective when it came to Obama.""That's your job," she remembers thinking when hearing this, before suggesting that he "find another line of work."

Last night, Keith Olbermann - on his show Countdown, named Couric "Worst Person in the World" for her remarks.  Here is a summary of his comments with regard to Couric:

-called her sexism charge against the media "nonsense" and "a little Kool-aid ish but that's her opinion and she's entitled to it."

-said she wasn't entitled to her comments about the "prominent member of the commentariat" who struggled to be objective.

-said "he didn't name him, maybe because she didn't bother to look it up," and he went on to identify the individual as an NBC correspondent whom in Olbermann's view had been "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."

-said the reporter was "utterly objective and accurate" and of Couric's charge that he "should find another line of work" Olbermann said that "by leaving NBC and the Today Show Ms. Couric already has."

As Rachel Sklar so impeccably points out  for Olbermann to "sit there on MSNBC and say that it's nonsense is a bit rich, considering that some of the higher-profile episodes of embarrassing sexist-or-perceived-as-sexist commentary has come from that network."

So - in light of this, I propose a new term for continually jumping the shark...

'Keith-ing it.'

Tags: clinton, couric, douche, Media Bias, obama, Olbermann, sexism (all tags)



i hope it catches on.

by canadian gal 2008-06-12 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Embed the Couric link

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/ main500251.shtml?id=4174053n

Katie really executes the perfect zinger.

by Xov Wonk 2008-06-12 08:34PM | 0 recs
I heard what he said too

I considered his criticism excessive.  He was more dismissive of Couric than I've heard him be of Dick Cheney at times.  I thought his verbal indulgence was more due to his own culpability, frankly.  The man's made his share of sexist remarks.  Now he defends such commentary almost blindly.  More and more Olbermann reminds me of those he criticizes - O'Reilly, Dobbs.  

You know - I worked as an actor and director in theatre, film and TV for a lot of years before several nasty accidents limited my mobility, and switched my focus from performing to writing.  I ran into a lot of people who made the mistake of believing their own publicity.  It has to do with ego, yes; but more with the kinds of people you surround yourself with.  If everybody tells you you walk on water - you begin to put on the robe and sandals.  

I think Keith's just about ready to grow that beard.      

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-06-12 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: I heard what he said too

It was important for him to do something to discredit her words, since she was talking about him and his network to a large degree.  So yes, he was really reaching.  He's trying to recover his Edward R Murrow wannabe fantasy, but I think it's forever Gone with the Wind (of another media gasbag).

by mtnspirit 2008-06-13 08:39AM | 0 recs
Does anyone else find it amusing

to watch the media-- especially the punditocracy-- investigating its own biases? They put on their serious faces, decide they are not guilty of whatever they're being charged with and come to the conclusion that it's total nonsense. LOL

The media is still denying that it did anything wrong/harmful during the Whitewater investigation for gawd's sake, and just a few days ago Matthews and guests were denying that the media didn't do its job during the run up to the war in Iraq. Do you imagine for a minute they're going to own up to sexism in their ranks?

You may be onto something about Keith believing his own publicity. I became disenamored of him months and months ago, not because of anything he said about Hillary but because I began to find him pompous and a little boring. I even stopped listening to his special comments; he talks waaaay past the close and takes himself too seriously, IMO. And he should keep a closer eye on his sanctimony meter, lol.

The first 20 minutes or so is generally still good and I sometimes listen to that and then switch to C-Span or business news or a good dvd or something. Or go for an evening walk to clear my mind of the day's media/blogosphere garbage spew.

I don't think anyone is saying that sexism/misogyny caused Hillary to lose the election, but to deny that it was rampant in media coverage is to not have done one's homework. Did it contribute? Hard to say-- but it was certainly there and in spades.

by Swedie 2008-06-13 10:07AM | 0 recs
You put this so well

and succinctly.  I thought similarly about him.  He really seems caught up in his own version of his importance to the world.  He is NO EDWARD R. MURROW.

by Jjc2008 2008-06-13 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: i hope it catches on.

and where was your diary on Fox's "Obama's Baby Mama"?

by hootie4170 2008-06-12 09:23PM | 0 recs
Re: i hope it catches on.

just shoooooo.    you want to demand absurd fair and balanced then watch FOX.  no need to try hijacking this timely and important diary.  you want to discuss that unconnected subject, go ahead get busy and write your own diary!

by swissffun 2008-06-12 10:32PM | 0 recs
Re: i hope it catches on.

The diary is implying that KO is a sexist.  I find it odd that the diarist only pens diaries when a sexism controversy is connected with HRC.  I have found her lack of covering other possible sexist activities by the MSM selective.

I wanted to know why there wasn't more of an outrage from her when FOX displayed the subtitle of "Obama's Baby Mama".

She can write 400 word diary on why KO is sexist, but only offer 4 short comments on the blatant sexism of FOX against Michele Obama.

by hootie4170 2008-06-12 11:09PM | 0 recs
Re: i hope it catches on.

You may have a point to make about "Obama's Baby Mama", whatever the hell that is. I do not watch cable, and esp not Fox, so I do not know the incident.

But Swissfun is right, if you want to discuss it, diary it and we can discuss how awful Fox news is. Yelling at the diarist for not writing the diary you want to write seems like a waste of typing. So is this comment I guess, since you are unlikely to take my advice.

by itsthemedia 2008-06-13 07:49AM | 0 recs
Not a troll.

I see no evidence of "yelling at the diarist", nor was the original comment about "not writing the diary you want to write". I suspect if you re-read his response, you won't find any either.

Just because the usual suspect(s) are piling on doesn't validate this absurd growing indignation. Diaries will elicit positive and negative responses. This diary is making a general argument for sexism - if he finds that claim to be selective, he has every right to point that out.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-13 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: i hope it catches on.

HI Dude,

I dont think it a priori implies that KO is a sexist.  But come on he is a total ass.

I would throw away my TV before having to watch him.  He is no different than Ann Counter or BIllO.


by giusd 2008-06-13 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: i hope it catches on.

What's up David?  Haven't seen you in while...glad you're still around...

by hootie4170 2008-06-13 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: i hope it catches on.


I am around.  Mostly watching and reading but i always take time to read what you have to say.

Looking foward to Karl Rove's vision of one party rule.  I just think karl thought it would be the GOP.  I guess he got that wrong too.  I think on the first Tuesday of Nov karl's head will explode.

be cool  david

by giusd 2008-06-13 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: i hope it catches on.

You too..

by hootie4170 2008-06-13 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: i hope it catches on.

I believe Hootie has made a "technique" out of throwing in distracting nonsense to obfuscate issues he/she doesn't agree with.  He/she has latched onto a couple of my comments this way in the past.

by mtnspirit 2008-06-13 08:41AM | 0 recs
If that was a troll, what is this?.

1. Impugning his motivations with outlandish suggestions that his aim here was to obfuscate. Pointing out selectiveness in an accusation is not obfuscation.
2. Broadening the allegations further by implying that this was a general pattern on the part of the user.

To wit, no useful point being made other than a personal attack on another user.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-13 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: i hope it catches on.

Give me examples...

by hootie4170 2008-06-13 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: i hope it catches on.

Not trollish.  Uprated.

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-06-13 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: i hope it catches on.

well, it actually is 'trollish' in that it attempts to attack the diarist instead of the content and distract and hi-jack the thread. That is trolling...

by zerosumgame 2008-06-13 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: i hope it catches on.

I don't agree.

by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem 2008-06-13 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: i hope it catches on.

OK, then how would you describe it?

Did the post add any substance to the thread?

Was it based on the content or on the feelings of the poster to attack the diarist?

Did it not in fact call out the diarist in an unfair and unprovoked manner?

by zerosumgame 2008-06-13 08:43AM | 0 recs
Is this snark?


by libertyleft 2008-06-13 09:28AM | 0 recs
Here's a clue

because you really seem to need one.
MOST progressives/liberals I know have been boycotting FOX since the day it came on the air.  I have never see but a few minutes of that NEWS network......when I am channel surfing.
Would never watch Cavuto or any of the women who are stupid enough to work at FOX.  

Boycotting networks is what viewers do best in protest to their policies, anchors' comments etc.

Since few of us watch FOX EVER,
a) how would we even KNOW what was said until it was reported elsewhere
b) how do we boycott something we already boycott because of its right wing, sexist, racist agendas?

On the other hand, too many progressives seem to worship KO and consider MSNBC to be a "FAIR" network.  Well, hello, many of us, particularly women, particularly Hillary supporters have been appalled at the following and support given a network that engages in sexism.  If we were watching and supporting FOX, you would have an argument.  But we don't. On the other hand, so called progressives refuse to take on KO or Matthews or MSNBC for its sexism.  THERE my friend is the double standard....
Your complaint has no credence because we already boycott FOX

by Jjc2008 2008-06-13 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's a clue

First off, I don't need a clue...especially from you.

Since few of us watch FOX EVER,

a) how would we even KNOW what was said until it was reported elsewhere
b) how do we boycott something we already boycott because of its right wing, sexist, racist agendas?

I thought the purpose of fighting sexism and racism was to call it out no matter who is guilty of it.  What your saying is we have done enough with FOX so if they do it is OK, because everyone knows FOX is right wing, sexist and racist.  I think you'd be surprised to find out that many people are naive to FOX's underlying messages.

As far as "not knowing" about "Obama's Baby Mama" because you do not watch FOX, I'm assuming you have the internet and it was a story on all progressive websites.

The "hey if FOX does it, it's OK because we boycott FOX" is weak..

by hootie4170 2008-06-13 05:32PM | 0 recs
It is kind of funny

not haha funny, but odd funny. I saw Couric's 60 mins interview with Clinton and thought it was one of the more vapid, bordering on useless interviews I has seen of the candidates up to that point. She even brought up and talked about Clinton's high school nickname (Frigidaire (!)) which while not a face pat certainly seemed pointless and borderline offensive,

Not defending Olbermann's actions, definitely on the histrionic side, but Couric by and large doesn't seem like much of a journalist, more "talking head" category, suited for the .am talk-show but not, IMO, much beyond that. And certainly not someone who is going to pull network news out of the tailspin it is in.

by notedgeways 2008-06-13 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: It is kind of funny

it would have been refreshing if she at least admitted to surfboarding on the obama kool-aid (that couric-clinton interview was a prime example). on the other hand, she maybe wanted to show that she's just as tough as the boys when she did that interview....and now in retrospect can lump her own travails with the sexism and bias that faced hillary.

by darwinism 2008-06-13 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Couric can take her
Nice display of sexism.
Maybe The Olberfuherer should hire you.
by cuppajoe 2008-06-13 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Couric can take her


That was appropriate criticism of Couric, not sexism. I'm beginning to think the women on MyDD wouldn't know sexism if it bit them.

BTW, "Olberfuherer" get you a double Fail.


by Rationalisto 2008-06-13 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Couric can take her

The sweetness and civility of your response is appreciated.

If you find the other three-quarters of your wits, perhaps you might go to the personality store and ask for an exchange. This one isn't working all that well for you.

by cuppajoe 2008-06-13 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: i hope it catches on.

I can't stand Keith Olbermann.  But I'm not sure about "keithing it" as a term for jumping the shark.  In reference to the most recent Indiana Jones movie, may I suggest "nuking the fridge?"

Keith Olbermann really nuked the fridge the other night.

by Koan 2008-06-13 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

You know , someone commented that he was complaining about Mccain and media bias today on his show.

Can you imagine the irony lol.

by lori 2008-06-12 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'
he's becoming delusional.

by alyssa chaos 2008-06-12 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

he's keith-ing it!

by canadian gal 2008-06-12 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'
dude. im gonna go 'keith it up' later tonight.hahaa

[this could start a new slang]
by alyssa chaos 2008-06-12 08:00PM | 0 recs
It's not going to catch on.

Other than the cacophony, your claims are specious.  Kouric repeated the same canard about media sexism doing Clinton in with no substantiation other than lifting a quote from a journalist who was making a completely different point.  It was sloppy, it was biased (in that she clearly went looking for any kind of media mea culpa as "proof" of her sexism claim) and it was cowardly.  Why not at least name the guy?  Perhaps she knew her quotes wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.  Well, Olbermann caught her.

Couric deserves the mocking.  Her poor journalistic instincts have led to her long ratings slide.  Of course, that could always be blamed on sexism too.

by corph 2008-06-13 06:22AM | 0 recs
substantiation? i think you should be mocked.

by canadian gal 2008-06-13 06:45AM | 0 recs
I don't get embeds here.

Care to paraphrase?  Is there something else to the Kouric piece I missed?  

By all means, I'm open to your attemps to blame Clinton's defeat on media sexism, even though that wasn't why Olbermann made Kouric the worst person in the world.

by corph 2008-06-13 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't get embeds here.

you'll have to see the video.

by canadian gal 2008-06-13 09:18AM | 0 recs

I'll respond tomorrow after I see it at home.

by corph 2008-06-13 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not going to catch on.
Its clear that "media sexism" is the meme that folks are using to cover up Clinton's horrible strategy, horrible polling negatives and horribly run campaign.
Instead of acknowledging shortcomings, it is much easier to make up excuses...
Now those same excuse factory folks are crucifying Keith because he refuses to buy into the post election spin.
by gil44 2008-06-13 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not going to catch on.

Wow, the disconnect is staggering.  So many of you didn't even see this sexism that so many of the rest of us were witnessing.  I think we need to do some serious educating of the public, if even good progressives can be so blind to it.

by mtnspirit 2008-06-13 08:49AM | 0 recs
It's not that...

There was sexism directed against Senator Clinton in the MSM, but there was racism in the media as well.  I'd expect nothing better from the media.  Haven't we been saying for years that they reflect the worst of America too often?  I don't understand why this has become a constant harrangue though daily over past offenses.  We exposed them at the time, but canadian gal seems to be daily going over this plowed ground, when so many new offenses against women and minorities go ignored (no offense is meant to canadian gal who I hearily enjoy reading).  Why should the foodfight between Katie Couric and Keith Olbermann interest us?

by nklein 2008-06-13 10:19AM | 0 recs
There is quite a disconnect.

Remember though, just because you "see" it and some of us may not, it doesn't mean it's there.  No way will I concede "you're likable enough Hillary" was sexist (a little ungracious, sure).  Same with the "feeling down periodically".

Which isn't to say I didn't see plenty of sexism, just not from Obama or his campaign as far as I can remember.  Besides, few of us would argue that Democrats are more sexist than Republicans.  If Clinton couldn't overcome this terrible "sexism barrier" in a Democratic primary where she started out with huge institutional advantages, I would not be hopeful for her to overcome it in a general.

by corph 2008-06-13 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

Beh, he's our Bill O.  I may not agree with everything he does, but at least he acts as a counter to the all of the conservative guys stacked around the same time.

by Xris 2008-06-12 07:57PM | 0 recs
politics makes strange bedfellows?
nah - i think there are better people to represent us.  what about rachel m?  i nominate her! she never 'keiths' it.
is it catching on yet?
by canadian gal 2008-06-12 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: politics makes strange bedfellows?

I love Rachel and I hope she gets a show soon.  

I understand why you dislike Keith, but I guess I just ignored his primary stuff and focused on his anti-McRusty/Bush stuff.  His full frontal assaults on the McCain campaign and the Bush administration are good for our causes and a necessary counter balance to the filth that comes out from Fox News.

But I can see why a Hillary supporter would want to kick him 20-30 times in the balls, so maybe I was just blinded by my candidate preference during the primaries.  

by Xris 2008-06-12 08:07PM | 0 recs
Thing is -

What happens if he decides he doesn't like Obama any more?  Will he go after him the way he went after Hillary?

I agreed with his BushCo takedowns too.  It took reading an article listing sexist commentary Olbermann had made across the board before I got upset.  Now I just watch to see Rachel Maddow.  I'd love it if she got her own show!

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-06-12 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Thing is -

If Obama gives him the reasons that Hillary did (him personally, according to his own morality) then yes, he should.

Set aside who likes Olbermann or not for a second folks.  We really should want our commentators to keep our guys and gals honest.  Olbermann honestly thought that Hillary had crossed a line or two (for purposes of this comment, I don't care if he was right or wrong, only that he honestly felt that way) and he called her on it.

A friend, a true friend, will tell you when you've fallen short.  They're the only people who can get it across, and even then it's dicey.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 09:46PM | 0 recs
you gotta be kidding me.

if you actually think that this is personal.

by canadian gal 2008-06-12 09:51PM | 0 recs
Re: you gotta be kidding me.
You don't think Olberman's comments are his personal opinions?
by shalca 2008-06-12 10:02PM | 0 recs
Re: you gotta be kidding me.

No, I do not have to be.

He spoke well of Senator Clinton for quite some time, and he made it very plain before his special comment on her that he was not happy to be doing it.

I'll honestly never understand why some Clinton supporters (I ain't saying you, or anyone in particular) thought Obama supporters (or people who, through this process, became Obama supporters) were lying (if not to others, then to themselves) about being hurt by some of the things the Clintons said and did this time around.

It was a bit like losing what remained of my political innocence.  I am not attacking anybody here, only remembering how I felt one night a few months ago.  I was standing in the parking lot outside of a restaurant (Great Lakes Brewery in Cleveland) checking for the primary results from my home state of South Carolina.  Obama had won big, but Bill Clinton compared him to Jesse Jackson.

I felt like I'd been punched in the gut by someone close to me.

Nothing anyone ever said created my views.  Bill's words were enough for me.  If Olbermann felt anything like I did, I can see where he's coming from.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 10:03PM | 0 recs
and it is not my intention to minimize

your feelings - but understand that however you felt - HRC supporters felt the same, maybe even worse since the attacks on her were more personal in nature.  that being said - this is not about that - but rather KO saying that sexism charge is nonsense.

by canadian gal 2008-06-12 10:08PM | 0 recs
By most accounts

the endless sexist emphasis on her "emotional moment" before New Hampshire actually helped her reverse the Iowa shock.

Women make up a majority of the electorate.  If the sexism/misogyny were so blatant, why did they not flock to her at least as much as AAs flocked to Obama after SC?  A concerted effort by media companies convinced enough Democrats  to vote against Clinton by demeaning women?  Olbermann was right to call it Koolaidish.

Oh, and you're conflating the BS Fox and Friends make up about any Democrat with Olbermann's substantive if harsh criticisms of Clinton.

by corph 2008-06-13 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: By most accounts

where did i mention fox?

by canadian gal 2008-06-13 06:52AM | 0 recs
You didnt,

but you mentioned sexism.  Which does come from Fox, along with racism, homophobia, xenophobia and a host of other sociopathic attitudes.

An analogy: Bush never explicitly said Saddam ordered 9/11, but he made a host of specious arguments that intentionally conflated the two in voters' minds.  [Note: making this analogy does NOT mean I'm comparing you morally to Bush.]

What you're doing is conflating standard rightwing (and simply clueless Matthews-like) sexist attacks on Clinton with a wide-ranging concerted media effort to take her down using gender-based arguments.

by corph 2008-06-13 07:12AM | 0 recs
selective blindness...

i think its called.  and your accusations are troubling.

by canadian gal 2008-06-13 09:27AM | 0 recs
Thank you for absolving

me of my worries I was being too nasty.  

Selective blindness?  I saw the offensive nutcracker trinkets at National Airport too.  Thing is, neither MSNBC, nor Keith Olbermann nor the Obama campaign made them.  I'm pretty darn sure their very offensiveness prompted more people to support Hillary in a Democratic primary.  But of course, she had to play the victim card over and over again too (as you and Katie Couric are doing now, even after the contest is settled).

And yeah, I'm sure it's real troubling that I accused you of conflating your arguments on an opinion blog, a mortal sin I've committed myself on occasion.  Good thing I prebutted it or you'd be accusing me of comparing you to Bush.

I'm still not clear which argument you're actually making?

  1. Members of the media made sexist comments during the primary campaign;
  2. Widespread media sexism was primarily responsible for Obama beating Clinton in a Democratic Primary, and therefore Olbermann is wrong to call Couric's tangential remarks "a little koolaidish";
  3. Couric was not referring to the journalist Keith brought up, and this anonymous so-called confession reinforces point 2;
  4. Couric correctly interpreted the journalist's struggle with journalistic ethics and how they can be compromised by proximity to a candidate as a confession of media bias and/or sexism;
  5. Olbermann was too hard on Couric (a network nightly news anchor, for chrissakes) for lifting a quote without citation and twisting it 180º to fit her sexism narrative.

I'll concede 1 and even 5, and dispute you on 2.  But if you're arguing 3 or 4, your "wilfull blindness" quip may hit closer to home than you think.

by corph 2008-06-13 12:13PM | 0 recs
My unsolicited advice to Reaper:

If your feelings were hurt by something Clinton said, then why the hell would you minimize the feelings of others who were hurt by things Olbermann said?  You'd do better validating the feelings of others than denying them and then touting your own hurt feelings.  Clinton supporters don't want to hear you sticking up for KO, they want you to validate their feelings.  And you're blowing it.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-13 03:35AM | 0 recs
Re: My unsolicited advice to Reaper:

I doubt very many people had invested as much in Olbermannas I had in Bill Clinton.  I defended Bill at length during the impeachment insanity.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-13 03:48AM | 0 recs
Re: My unsolicited advice to Reaper:

What I'd like to know is why do you hate Jesse Jackson?

I always liked Jesse Jackson, back in the day before I knew about the womanizing.

by LIsoundview 2008-06-13 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: you gotta be kidding me.

I took it as a demographic comment. I thought there was an overblown hype to the "outrage." Do you think demographic comments are out of place in political discussions?

As for KO, even if he felt as you did at that moment, he stopped being a journalist from that moment on. He lost all objectivity and became an Obama staffer. He beat Hillary for everything after that and using all of the right's talking points. Like a floodgate had been opened.

He also made Elton John the Worst Person in the World for calling out the misogyny.

I call it OlberBoarding.

by SophieL 2008-06-13 10:02AM | 0 recs
And being compared to Jesse Jackson is

bad because???????????
Not one Obama supporter has told me why?
I happen to love Jesse, supported him and resented the "any African American meme except for Jesse" some put out to prove they were really not racist.

Jesse Jackson, a flawed human being like all of us, did some great things for civil rights, for injustice.  He got under people's skins, so to speak, and angered them and made them confront their feelings.  He challenged the status quo wherever and whenever and has been personally attacked for doing so.  

Is it because he is black? Is comparing one person of color to another in a race an evil thing?  Do you think that years from now when another woman runs she won't be compared to the first woman to make substantial wins?  Jesse was the first minority male to make substantial wins in a primary.

WHY?  Jesse is/was a hero to me.  Why are comparing Barack's accomplishments to Jesse's accomplishments in the political arena seen as racist or evil unless people are dissing Jesse.

by Jjc2008 2008-06-13 03:51PM | 0 recs
So - even if you did not agree with it -

Should Olbermann take after Obama, you'd applaud it because it was Olbermann's 'honest' opinion?

Somehow I can't quite believe that.  I'm sure you're going to qualify that by saying that of course you and Olbermann'd agree because Olbermann only speaks the god's hones truth at all times - right?

Be careful my friend.  That's a very slippery slope you've just committed yourself to.  

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-06-12 10:18PM | 0 recs
My reply is to Reaper0bot0 by the way

I hate how these threads get so easily unraveled!

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-06-12 10:20PM | 0 recs
If Olbermann goes after Obama

it's likely because I have already done so myself.  Olbermann doesn't wake up in the morning and decide to take down someone.  He doesn't rant against Clinton every night; during primary season he called her out when she made some really bad moves.  A little introspection as to why he was doing that might have helped the Clinton campaign if they'd done earlier in the primary season.

Olbermann loves to expose lying, hypocrisy and general douchebaggery.  I agree with most of his premises for basing his opinions.  If Obama continues to run the campaign I believe he intends to, he has nothing to fear from Olbermann.

by corph 2008-06-13 06:43AM | 0 recs
So......Obama should conduct himself

according to Olbermann's rules?  That's scary.  And stupid.  Look what happened when Al Gore tried to remake his image according to Saturday Night Live.  And that's not even addressing the morality of it all.

God I hope Obama doesn't mold his opinions according to the latest poll (or some pundit's dictums).  Who know who we'd get for president?

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-06-13 10:03AM | 0 recs
Olbermann's rules?

I think common decency and a sense of party unity should be enough.    You can interpret his criticism as Olbermann being in the tank for Obama, Olbermann randomly trying to destroy candidates one after the other, or Olbermann simply not finding much objectionable about the Obama campaign.

by corph 2008-06-13 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Thing is -

personal, morality???? are you crazy? then first they need to remove any and all journalistic or news tags to his show. if that's how you think he should behave then he should get a daytime talk show! you've basically said that candidates should suck up to the media just so they get good coverage. what a disgusting and dangerous recommendation. Obama may be safe with key, by your journalistic standards, but those same standards make it okidoki for every other commentator that thinks Obama has offended their morality to bash him and not examine McCain.

by swissffun 2008-06-12 10:37PM | 0 recs
Re: politics makes strange bedfellows?

I agree with your sentiment, I think Keith is awesome in his daily defense of things good, but can fly off the handle at times.  That is his style and sometimes he is right, sometimes wrong, or sometimes the viewer just plain disagrees with him, but that doesn't mean he should be tainted poorly considering he is a liberal warrior.  

Yes sexism exists, we know that, but it didn't determine the election, if so why would so many liberal women under 60 vote for Obama?  

We need high profile and outlandish people like Keith, that is what gets peoples attention, why else would Billo and Rush be so popular.  I also think because of him and his show, we have had the pleasure of seeing a whole lot more of Rachel Maddow, who in my mind might be the most reasonable, fair minded, and intelligent person out there.  Plus for a genious wonk, she has a great personality and attitude (how about how she brushed off Morning Joe when he had a temper tantrum)  

Yea, Keith could learn a thing or two from Rachel, but we need him in our fight against the bad guys, and no, he is not one of them.  

by KLRinLA 2008-06-13 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: politics makes strange bedfellows?

The reason we're seeing more and more of Rachel Maddow on MSNBC is because of Keith Olbermann. He was, I think, the first to have her on regularly, giving her almost daily airtime, as well as having her guest-host his show (with considerable ratings success). he's an important reason why she's a rising star at that network.

Not crazy about your cute term. It's awkward to say, requires a long explanation and insider knowledge to appreciate, and depends on a particular interpretation which is not likely to be shared by anyone who already doesn't agree with you.

Whereas, is there anyone who thinks that the Fonz waterskiing over a shark tank isn't THE singular example of a deperate attempt to sustain an exhausted storyline?

by BobzCat 2008-06-12 08:14PM | 0 recs
damn - you don't like the term? ;)

but seriously - rachel is great save for her associations with some goons who shall remain nameless. (no - not the Fonz)

by canadian gal 2008-06-12 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: politics makes strange bedfellows?

Nope.  She shared a show with Tucker Carlson before KO started having her on.  ANd of course, she's had her Air America radio show for several years now.

by Denny Crane 2008-06-12 11:15PM | 0 recs
Re: politics makes strange bedfellows?

Her Tucker stint was a couple of years ago. Since bouncing around, she's settled at MSNBC as a regularly political analyst only recently. It's only an opinion, but I think Olbermann is owed some credit for helping to further Maddow's visibility on the network.

Of course, the most credit goes to Rachel herself, whose talents in radio have long been self-evident, but whose television skills are getting better all the time.

by BobzCat 2008-06-13 07:33AM | 0 recs
Gee, isn't that special

KO gets Rachel a gig where she can really show what a sell out she is.  How any woman of any ethnicity, any age, straight or gay, can share a screen with the likes of the pigs of MSNBC is beyond understanding.

Rachel has been a huge disappointment.

by Jjc2008 2008-06-13 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Gee, isn't that special

Whoa, I'd think a "go fuck yourself" would be too gentle, but I'll just keep my mouth shut instead.

by KLRinLA 2008-06-13 10:56AM | 0 recs
Now that's classy

If Rachel had stood up to the jerks there, I would have been applauding her. I didn't see it.  They get it a pass.
Tell me something, if any progressive at all, was willing to sit down with David Dukes' friends and defenders and said nothing to the audience other than (some say his racist/sexist words got them to vote for x candidate).......wouldn't liberals be offended, angry.  A lot of people were p*ssed as h*ll that certain pundits & politicians talk with, showed respect to Imus.   They were ravaged by plenty here.  WHY?  Because Imus' racist rhetoric offended many.

But because I am offended by Matthews sexist rhetoric and do not admire anyone who is willing to share the stage w/him, I get profanities hurled my way?????


by Jjc2008 2008-06-13 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Now that's classy

Well, Matthews apologized, Olbermann I didn't know was a sexist jerk, that is news to me.  But now you call Rachel Maddow a sellout? one of the best up and coming progressive pundits(on  national television level)

Well you have some pretty high standards and I called you out on it.  What do you expect these pundits to do, jump across a table and start pounding on each other, making histerical scenes during discussions?  She would be kicked out so quickly.  Plus, I think this diary has Olbermann all wrong, he is not a sexist, but he is hyper critical.  

There is such thing a decorum, which I lack obviously, but Maddow certainly does not.  I resent your statments about this amazing woman because they are not only terrible misinformed, but apparently based on some irrational belief of extreme sexism by Olbermann which quite frankly does not exist.

I apologize for my language though, it was inappropriate, I got really defensive of Ms. Mddow, one of the few progressives getting a high profile out there.

by KLRinLA 2008-06-13 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Gee, isn't that special

Rachel Maddow is breaking into the mainstream, without watering down her opinions. It's damn refreshing, is what it is.

Are you saying that when a woman works herself into a position where she can provide a counter the male-dominated opinion at a network, she's selling out? If you call that selling out, then you're willing to consign liberal voices to the far margins of mainstream media.

On the other hand, if you're simply damning her with guilt by association because the network has people on it you don't like, well, that's not a very coherent argument. There are assholes at every network, even Air America.

by BobzCat 2008-06-13 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: politics makes strange bedfellows?

No, your retarded phrase is not catching on. Nice try, though.

by Rationalisto 2008-06-13 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

I don't watch him regularly, but I've seen his special comments pop up the charts on Digg regularly.

In my opinion, he's not an O'Reilly, whose goal is to beat down opposition through ridicule and volume. He's more of a cheerleader or a preacher, whipping up the faithful's fervent enthusiasm.

He won't convert many, but he does get people motivated and gets his people focused on the importance of their goal.

by TCQuad 2008-06-12 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

Yeah, my comparison of him to Bill O probably wasn't correct.  But he is the bulldog of that time slot for our side.  I am glad someone like him is in there rather than another Chris Matthews or dumbass like Gregory.

by Xris 2008-06-12 08:08PM | 0 recs
Olbermann, Matthews, O'Reilly....

...they're all stereotypical examples of everything that's WRONG with the media in this country.

Multiple wrongs don't make a right. It's just more WRONG.

They're disgusting...every freakin' single one of them.

They're so caught up in their egos and their power--and I say this from a lot of experience dealing with folks of this ilk--that it has become transparent in their work. They've given up making any attempt at demonstrating semblance of humility, whatsoever, and effort to deliver any sort of evenhandedness to their coverage and commentary.

To them, it's not about current events; it is all about THEM.

The fact that Markos has chosen to all but deify Olbermann at this point just speaks so much more to the reality that DKos is as much a part of this shit as any other entity (and person).

In short, it's all about selling out your ethics for personal gain...to the point of compulsion and semi-sociopathic behavior.

Doubt me? Just ask Olbermann, Matthews and O'Reilly if they don't believe they're speaking from their hearts.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

by bobswern 2008-06-13 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

i hate bill and we don't need one of our own. just because we may agree more with keith's views does not excuse the fact that he employs the same sycophantic type of journalism that bill-o excercise. he was great at first but now he got lost within his own delusion of self importance (edward murrow he is not!). at least bill-o gets people in his show with different points of views...but he thrives on that and the chance to insert his views to try and shoot them down. whereas keith prefers an echo chamber where his guests can parrot his own views or underline his own contempt and mock outrage.

by darwinism 2008-06-13 08:51AM | 0 recs
Your selective misquoting of Olbermann...

... and both your and Couric's selective misquoting of Lee Cowan (and her mischaracterization of Cowan as a member of "the commentariat") only shows that your utter lack of concern for the truth is as deep as Couric's lack of respect for Lee Cowan's forthrightness.  

Either that, or both you and Couric are simply unable -- or unwilling -- to grasp the facts in this matter.

People can see the actual Countdown segment here and Lee Cowan's forthright statement about what it is like to cover the Obama campaign here and draw their own conclusions.

by tbetz 2008-06-12 08:01PM | 0 recs
she didnt mention anyone by name.

in fact, when i heard her comments i thought she was referring to keith himself.

and sorry - where was i untruthful?

by canadian gal 2008-06-12 08:07PM | 0 recs
But she was referring to Cowan...

... and I gave you the proof of it.

And your dishonesty starts with omitting Cowan's name in your attack on Olbermann for telling the truth of the matter.

Anyone who watches the actual Countdown segment and compares it with your diary will clearly see your dishonesty.

by tbetz 2008-06-12 08:14PM | 0 recs
since when is cowan a prominent reporter?

and anyway who cares if he was mentioned by name by her or me?  and why does that in anyway change what the meaning of what she said or rather what he said?  it doesn't.

by canadian gal 2008-06-12 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: since when is cowan a prominent reporter?

Actually I think this is counter productive to your point.  If he is a nobody reporter then why did Couric have to use him as a charge of bias in the media?

If you want to attack someone as biased and sexist go after Tweety.  I have been waiting for a host like Keith Olbermann for years.

by kasjogren 2008-06-13 08:54AM | 0 recs
oh and i have now embedded your link...

that you are harping on about.  still - i believe that it is you that is being intellectually dishonest.  who cares who she was referring to? the fact is that he said those words.

by canadian gal 2008-06-12 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: oh and i have now embedded your link...
He said them in the context of answering Brian Williams' question about covering such an inspiring candidate and he added that it requires extra vigilence to be fair in reporting. Leaving that out changes the entire meaning of his words.
by shalca 2008-06-12 09:32PM | 0 recs
I thought she was referring to Olbermann too

She didn't mention Cowen by name.  Olbermann did that all by his lonesome.  

Frankly - I found that high horse he climbed up on rather artificial.  The man needs a good long session in front of a highly reflective mirror.

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-06-12 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I thought she was referring to Olbermann too

That's exactly what KO doesn't need - more time in front of a mirror. He already likes himself way too much.

We don't need a lefty version of Bill'O. We need more Rachel Maddows and Thom Hartmanns. Why is it everyone from Howard Dean to Tom Brokaw can see that there was rampant sexism in the primary coverage, but Olbermann calls it "nonsense"?

No matter what his stances are, he has no business anchoring the news coverage of the primaries (and neither does Tweety, for that matter).  MSNBC has actual journalists who aren't commentators.  Perhaps they should consider using them.

by Denny Crane 2008-06-12 11:21PM | 0 recs
Hear, hear!

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-06-12 11:45PM | 0 recs
He's open about his arrogance

unlike most news anchors.  To call him a leftwing version of BillO is playing in to all those false balance tactics the right loves to use to claim that tax cuts increase revenue, the earth is not warming and that evolution is only a theory.

Olbermann can be as aggressive as BillO, sometimes even more so.  But there's a difference.  He does his homework.  His guests actually know what they are talking about.  He apologizes immediately and in no uncertain terms when he screws up.  In short, he has integrity.  Which Katie Couric, in this instance, did not.

by corph 2008-06-13 06:49AM | 0 recs
He used to be like that

When was the last time he apologized for anything?  Don't let who the man was blind you to who he is morphing into.  He's believing his own hype - buying into the myth.  That's disastrous in a commentator.  And it's happened before.  Brush up on your broadcast media history.  The last 50 years are rife with examples of fallen heroes and tarnished gods.  Olbermann'd better take a good, long look inside if doesn't want to find himself mentioned in the same breath as Arthur Godfrey.

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-06-13 10:13AM | 0 recs
He's not morphing into anything.

His apology for David Shuster's "pimped out" Chelsea comment was a model of contrition.  I believe giving himself the bronze for WPITW was more recent than that.

Olbermann's style is far from perfect; I've criticized his humour segments and the sometimes childish way he mocks people (although they usually deserve it).

But I suspect his "morphing" into some unhinged loon to you coincided with his harsher criticism of Hillary Clinton's campaign tactics.  Which in turn flared up as soon as she started falling behind.

Olbermann wasn't the one who lost his scruples and integrity through primary season.  It was Mrs. In-it-to-win-it.

by corph 2008-06-13 12:27PM | 0 recs
Boy - you really like to exagerate

'Unhinged loon'?  Really?  Quote me where I used those exact words.

I hope you enjoy talking to yourself.  Not worth discussing anything if you invent the answers.  

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-06-14 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I thought she was referring to Olbermann too

Because KO knows what the word sexism means which alot of others apparently don't.  Dean is willing to concede it after the fact, same with Brokaw, as a sop to Clinton supporters,  but if they really believe that they should have been talking about it before now.  

Regardless of if you think sexism was pronounced enough to affect the outcome, do you believe that if KO thought it was that he would have held back in talking about it?

by Tumult 2008-06-13 10:05AM | 0 recs
"'selective misquoting' of Olbermann"

Is there such a thing as a selective misquote?

And if so, could you point it out for me in this diary?


by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-12 08:11PM | 0 recs
this may be helpful

selective misquoting isn't  hard it is quite simply providing only partial quotes that miscontrues the context of what is quoted so that you get the reaction you want

you can clearly see this in how the  diariest at first didn't want to give the full context and only provided very small quotes

also rather damning is that the diariest doesn't actually provide a sentence but a summary which is very easy to manipulate.

An exampe of selective misquoting is if I said about some one this: 'while he may be an ass, he's still a great person and definitely a worthy friend' and the person I said this to then went to that person and said I think that this friend is an ass. Now clearly that's misquoting me and it's quite underhanded.

There is no outrage here, and Couric was clearly out of line for the second part. As for the sexism Keith like everyone clearly has an opnion on it but it's just that an opnion and that's what Kieth said.

by drache 2008-06-12 09:29PM | 0 recs
It just seems like an oxymoron to me.

Either you're quoting someone accurately but taking their words out of context (selectively quoting), or you're quoting them inaccurately, such as attributing words to them that they never said (misquoting).

I googled, and it sure enough is an existing term, but it just doesn't sound right to me.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-13 10:11AM | 0 recs
<shrug> makes sense to me but eh

by drache 2008-06-14 07:46AM | 0 recs
... as opposed to "random misquoting"

"Selective" = "Intentional, vs. "Random" = "Accidental".

by tbetz 2008-06-14 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Your selective misquoting of Olbermann...

Thanks for the context.  Couric was out of line in calling out Cowan.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-06-12 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Your selective misquoting of Olbermann...

Thanks tbetz...

by hootie4170 2008-06-12 08:44PM | 0 recs
A bit personal towards cgal

Come on.

by catfish2 2008-06-12 08:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Your selective misquoting of Olbermann...

I saw the damn hack piece - it was revolting from the get go, and I am no fan of Couric. Stop trying to attack the diarist and defend KO with this tired old defense 'oooohhh you selectively quote, you take out of context'....     there's no context that would make what KO said acceptable, just like there's no context that makes many of the overt sexist comments from the MSM acceptable.

by swissffun 2008-06-12 10:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Your selective misquoting of Olbermann...


Finally someone focuses on the facts, not their bellybuttons.


by Rationalisto 2008-06-13 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

Funny thing is that Countdown out-rated O'Reilly last week for the first time in broadcast history, apparently.  Hmm...  Somehow I don't think Olbermann is going to be doing much penance over allegations of bias just now.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-06-12 08:09PM | 0 recs
Wasn't that while BillO was on vacation?

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-12 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Wasn't that while BillO was on vacation?

I have no idea.  I don't watch FOx and MSNBC doesn't get bounced over here to Australia, apparently.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-06-12 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Wasn't that while BillO was on vacation?

Yes, it was.

by Denny Crane 2008-06-12 11:22PM | 0 recs
yep - too sad isn't it?

by canadian gal 2008-06-12 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: yep - too sad isn't it?

Well, I'm looking forward to the imminent demise of Fox but that's just me.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-06-12 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: yep - too sad isn't it?

That would be a long wait .

What are you doing in Australia .


I had a choice but I went with Canada for a vacation spot.

by lori 2008-06-12 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: yep - too sad isn't it?

Maybe not so long as you might think.  At least to get knocked off their perch.  Wait 'till later this year when they've pooped all over themselves fighting against a soon to be popular president-elect.

And yeah, I've been in Australia for the last twenty-four years or so.  Different work ethic here.  But the beaches, wow.  If you ever come to Oz you should check out the Northern NSW coast.  Kinda' New Age but yummy.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-06-12 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: yep - too sad isn't it?


Thats so beautiful.

I am almost thinking twice now lol.

I would probably be there next year .

by lori 2008-06-12 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: yep - too sad isn't it?

Don't neglect to let me know if you do, would be happy to extend whatever expatriate hospitality seems appropriate.  We live in a little rainforest valley about half an hour from Byron Bay, where the photo was taken.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-06-12 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: yep - too sad isn't it?

Will do.

Nice of you to say.

by lori 2008-06-12 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: yep - too sad isn't it?

No worries, as they say around here.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-06-12 08:49PM | 0 recs
ah - i see what you are trying to do....

the old bait and switch.  good one.

by canadian gal 2008-06-12 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: ah - i see what you are trying to do....

Who me?  We just have a different take on this.  I wasn't so thrilled seeing Keith's veins pop out sometimes but it's nice to have some of that energy on your side once in awhile.  It's been a long time between drinks.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-06-12 08:32PM | 0 recs
This diary about media bias is itself biased

Your diary is grossly misleading and undermines your credibility and your crusade against media bias.

Your diary implies that Keith made Couric his worst person of the world because he didn't like the way she criticized the media for sexism against Clinton.  That is FALSE.  Yes, he disagreed with Couric's assessment that substantial media sexism played a significant role in contributing to Clinton's defeat.  But, he said that's her opinion and she's entitled to it.  

Couric made the list because she falsely accused Lee Cowan of admitting to being biased in his coverage of Obama when he admitted to no such thing.  And even Rachel Sklar wrote that it was fair of Keith to defend Cowan: Look, it was fair for Olbermann to defend Lee Cowan -- I happen to agree that making that admission in context of recognizing the need for objectivity suggested a self-awareness that many other journalists and commentators have found sadly lacking.

Couric deserved her worst person status for her baseless attack on the journalistic integrity of a respected journalist, especially ironic when Cowan's self-reflective statement shows much more integrity than Couric's defamatory and unjustified polemic.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-06-12 08:45PM | 0 recs
for the last time!

she didnt mention anyone by name.  and this bait and switch thing does not work with me.

by canadian gal 2008-06-12 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: for the last time!

What in the world are you talking about, "bait and switch???"  Are you actually disputing what the point of Keith's worst person designation was?  

by ProfessorReo 2008-06-12 09:00PM | 0 recs

it doesnt matter that she didnt mention him by name - it really could have been a host of reporters that she was referring to.  but since keithing it brought it up.  let's take a gander at cowan's remarks...

is he being honest?  yes!  do i commend him for his honesty?  yes.  does this change the fact that msnbc and a host of others were both sexist and not objective? NO!

by canadian gal 2008-06-12 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: yes.

But doesn't it speak to the thesis of your diary in the context of these statements?  Seems it does.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-06-12 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: yes.

the thesis of my diary is listed in quoting sklar in the last sentence of the diary - is that not clear?

by canadian gal 2008-06-12 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: yes.

No food-fight intended.  Just sayin'.  Perhaps you should restate your case in the diary with an update as it seems to have been misinterpreted.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-06-12 09:16PM | 0 recs

i will - can i ask a quick question?  how do i do an update? i tried it a couple of times and dont know how.

by canadian gal 2008-06-12 09:19PM | 0 recs
Re: thanks.

When you open your own diary there is an 'edit' button.  Click it and you will get an HTML scrambled version of your diary which you are probably best advised to leave pretty much alone unless you know your way around HTML tags.  Scroll down to the bottom and start a new line with [Update] or whatever and then type your new text.  It's just a diary edit, really.

Then click preview to see how it looks, when you are happy with it click update and a red message at the top will tell you it was saved if it was successful.  Good luck.  Then get out of there by clicking home or something and go back and check your diary on the list or through your blog option.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-06-12 09:26PM | 0 recs
thanks for the tip.

much appreciated.  oh and one of my bestest friends lives in sydney.

by canadian gal 2008-06-12 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: thanks for the tip.

The 'big smoke' to us country folk but one of the most fun cities in the Southern hemisphere, to be sure.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-06-12 11:13PM | 0 recs
Re: yes.

Your response doesn't provide any justification for your misleading diary.  Do you understand that people reading it will believe that Keith made Couric worst person for making her sexism allegation?  And do you understand that is completely misleading and deceptive?

As for your attack on Keith's opinion about Couric's sexism charge, you again fail to understand the nature of Keith's criticism.  I actually agree with Keith's assessment of Couric's claim as "nonsense."  Honestly, because it was.  

The nonsense part wasn't her allegation of media sexism.  I agree with that.  I repeat, I agree that there were incidents of sexism in the media coverage of Hillary Clinton.  

The nonsense part was Couric's claim that sexism in the media played a significant part in Hillary's defeat.  It's her claim of a meaningful causal relationship between media coverage and Hillary's defeat, without providing any supporting evidence for such a strong claim, that doesn't pass the smell test and smacks of political spin.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-06-12 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: yes.

i will be updating the diary.  but im sorry - KO lost all benefit of the doubt for parsing and objectivity with regard to sexism.

by canadian gal 2008-06-12 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: yes.

Thank you.  

You are obviously entitled to your opinion of Keith, but it's a bit extreme to paint him as one of the worst examples of sexist journalists on air.  There are many, many others who are off the charts with their sexism (i.e., most of the Fox pundits and journalists).  

I also think it is important to focus on the issue of sexism in the media as we move on to the general election.  Instead of talking about sexism during the primary coverage as a way to keep debating the useless battle over why Hillary lost, what would be useful is to use that knowledge to be more vigilant about sexism during the general election coverage.

As we are all aware, the subject of dual racist-sexist attacks in the media will be Michelle Obama.  We had the opening salvo with that horribly offensive "baby mama" slur against Michelle Obama.  I look forward to future diaries of yours bringing light to sexist coverage of our future First Lady.

by ProfessorReo 2008-06-12 09:42PM | 0 recs
Re: for the last time!

And so what if Couric didn't mention Cowan by name?  Is Couric denying Keith's allegation that it in fact was about Cowan?  Are you denying it?  If so, on what basis?  Even Rachel Sklar, the person you quoted, acknowledges that Couric's comment was about Cowan.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-06-12 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: for the last time!

Let me quote Rachel Sklar again:

Look, it was fair for Olbermann to defend Lee Cowan -- I happen to agree that making that admission in context of recognizing the need for objectivity suggested a self-awareness that many other journalists and commentators have found sadly lacking

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

by ProfessorReo 2008-06-12 09:03PM | 0 recs
and you are also omitting the part of

rachel's quote which is what this diary is about...

for KO to sit there on MSNBC and say that it's nonsense is a bit rich, considering that some of the higher-profile episodes of embarrassing sexist-or-perceived-as-sexist commentary has come from that network."

by canadian gal 2008-06-12 09:08PM | 0 recs
Re: and you are also omitting the part of

I omitted it because it was not relevant to the point I was making about Lee Cowan.

But, the Rachel Sklar piece makes the same mistake you make in your diary.  You and Sklar both assume that Keith is denying that there was sexism in the media.  That is not true.  The "kool-aid-ish" aspect of Couric's statement was her unsupported claim that pronounced sexism in the media played a significant role in Hillary's defeat.

One can acknowledge that there was sexist coverage in the media, and still believe that it did not play a significant part in Hillary's defeat, especially when any sexism bias in the media was more than countered by racial bias in the media in terms of their obsessive coverage of the Reverend Wright and bitter-gate scandals.

by ProfessorReo 2008-06-12 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: and you are also omitting the part of

what parsing.

by swissffun 2008-06-12 10:47PM | 0 recs
Re: This diary about media bias is itself biased

you're wrong - he did dismiss there was sexism in the media, calling it hyped. that was near the beginning and what i found highly offensive.

by swissffun 2008-06-12 10:45PM | 0 recs
It is hype.

Chris Matthews may be a blundering idiot AND a sexist (without even understanding or realizing it), but I think Keith has alluded to that in the past on the air.

But that's not the same as this persistent victim-of-sexism meme that Canadian Gal is trying to keep alive.  Hillary's problem was the AUMF vote and all her other problems derived from that.  Sexism was never even a slight issue.  It was just an excuse to blame the media.  

And now we have "Keith-ing."

by Dumbo 2008-06-13 02:14AM | 0 recs
Re: This diary about media bias is itself biased

This seems unnecessarily hostile to me.

by Denny Crane 2008-06-12 11:31PM | 0 recs
Really? she deserved worst person in the

entire world for her comment?  Not robert mugabe, or any of the other several billion people on this entire planet?  If you don't get that Couric was no where near the "worst person in the world" that day, and that ko only named her as such to protect his own bloated ego, as opposed to informing progressives as to the news and important current events in politics and world affairs, then I can't help you.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-13 03:42AM | 0 recs
Well the scuttle butt is

That Olbermann has been currying favor with the dKos crowd to get his ratings up.  He'll say whatever they want to hear.  Apparently its working

by dbrown04 2008-06-12 09:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Well the scuttle butt is

And where is that butt scuttled, I wonder?

by Shaun Appleby 2008-06-12 09:09PM | 0 recs
Its a testable conjecture

Olbermann started his attacks on Clinton shortly before he started posting on dKos.  I suppose that we could run over to dKos a do a little poll.  It might be interesting to find out how many Kossacks watch Olbermann and how many starting in March.

by dbrown04 2008-06-12 11:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Its a testable conjecture

Well, fair enough, but they don't call it the 'great orange Satan' for nothing, seems like it is becoming the bête noire for a whole segment of the blogosphere.  I'll believe it when I see it, the MSNBC ratings numbers are in the millions not hundreds of thousands.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-06-12 11:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Its a testable conjecture

Actually, MSNBC's viewership is in the hundreds of thousands. Olbermann's lucky if he crosses the million viewer threshold for one of his shows. He tends to hover around the 900,000 mark. Matthews is #2, and his viewership is consistently half a million or so.

by Pol C 2008-06-13 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Its a testable conjecture

I stand corrected.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-06-13 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

I have no problem with her bringing up the sexism.

This, however:

She went on to say that latent sexism contributed, in part, to Hillary's defeat.

....that's just speculation.  It's also possible that sexism rallied women to Hillary, making her do better than she might have.  Couric doesn't know that sexism caused Hillary's defeat...she's just makin' stuff up, and I'd put sexism well behind "piss poor strategy" and "AUMF vote" as the defining reason for Hillary's loss.

As for Keith.  sigh  Well, I missed that one, and his show is certainly childish in its manner, sometimes.  But tonight he ripped McCain a new asshole, so win some, lose some, I guess.

by freedom78 2008-06-12 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'
damn. the last part of your comment is hilarious.

by alyssa chaos 2008-06-12 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

Of course it's speculation.  It's something that can never be proven.   Couric's whole piece was her opinion anyway - just as KO's piece was his opinion. Couric's opinion isn't coming out of left field, you know,  She's far from the only one saying this.

by Denny Crane 2008-06-12 11:29PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

Well its impossible to to untangle all the threads of why Hillary lost.  However, I have to say ( and as an Obama supporter) that the sexism expressed in comments from some (not all) opponents rubbed me entirely the wrong way and its impossible to tell as well what role that played in the whole enchilada.  But I don't think you can say with certainty that it played no role.  How can you? Why is saying it might have played a role so threatening? It doesn't take away from Obama's qualifications

I am an Obama supporter who goes much much less to KOS after a recommended diary there said that the diarists mother and aunt should be "ashamed" of saying sexism played a role in this electon. Ashamed. Even if they were wrong, they had a lifetime of experience to wonder what was lurking in the background.

by KateG 2008-06-13 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

I have no problem in admitting that there was sexism in this campaign from a variety of sources.  

But what role it played and how it affected Hillary's chances to win is debatable, so to state it as a contributing factor for her loss strikes me as irresponsible.  

As stated above, it's possible (even probable) that some women were driven TO Hillary because of the sexism they saw.  How many votes were driven away?  I don't know.  Neither does Katie Couric.  So why state that it contributed to her defeat, when we don't know such a thing?

by freedom78 2008-06-13 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

I think KO is great when he goes after Bush and Fox...He's like a Carville pundit...

by hootie4170 2008-06-12 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

I love Keith. He's not perfect but he does alot more good than bad.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-12 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

He's the one guy I never miss.  Every night, I catch the stream.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 09:50PM | 0 recs
Here's a question for you. . .
Do you believe in your heart of hearts that if all else being equal, the entire media had been (in your estimation) fair, balanced, and gender-neutral during the primary season that Clinton would have won the nomination?
by shalca 2008-06-12 10:05PM | 0 recs
i don't know.

and that's the point.  but the media played a role.

whether or not she won or lost now is moot, but the fact that they brought to light the sexism in society i guess is a benefit although no one seems to be really taking them to task yet for it.

by canadian gal 2008-06-12 10:12PM | 0 recs
We do know and the answer is no.

Thank you for updating your diary, but there is still a very misleading statement that you have not edited.  You state that Keith "called her sexism charge against the media "nonsense."  

Your charge against Keith is nonsense.  I made this point in my other comments, but you either misunderstood it or chose to willfully ignore it.

One more time - What Keith called "nonsense" was Couric's CAUSAL claim in explaining Hillary's loss - that it was caused by sexism in the media.

Her causal explanation is what is nonsense.  It's nonsense because she assumes it without providing any support or evidence for a very non-obvious assumption.  

It is nonsense because I've seen people make these grand causal connections between media bias and Hillary's loss, yet I have yet to see anyone actually try to provide any real analysis to support the claim that sexist bias had any significant role in Hillary's defeat.  

So, please, stop falsely accusing Keith of something he did not say.  You're just making him into a strawman for who knows what reasons.  

And again, I look forward to future diaries about sexism in the media is it relates to the general election.  I'm sure you're just as angry about the Michelle Obama racist-sexist slur as I am, and I hope you'll be writing a diary analyzing that issue and the sexist defense of the slur by Michelle Malkin.  Didn't she try to justify the slur by claiming that it was okay since Michelle had referred to Barack as her "babies' daddy?"  

by ProfessorReo 2008-06-12 10:34PM | 0 recs
im finding your comments condescending.

but thats okay.  and two can play that game...  proof?  what proof do you have that it didnt affect her loss?

keith did say it was nonsense and stop saying that my diary is misleading - its not.

oh and check out some of my other diaries that call out sexism on DEMOCRATS and women in the media.  thanks and good day.

by canadian gal 2008-06-12 10:48PM | 0 recs
Re: im finding your comments condescending.

When someone asks you to provide proof for an assertion, you can either provide it or not.

In response, to demand instead that someone prove the negative is very bad form, rhetorically. You may as well just admit you've lost the argument at that point.

by BobzCat 2008-06-13 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: im finding your comments condescending.

Well said.

Resorting to calling someone condescending is a nice "bait and switch".  It does nothing to address the actual discussion at hand.

by C 1 2008-06-13 08:07AM | 0 recs
hang on here.

the whole criticism here from the commenter and KO is that IT IS THEIR OPINION that there was both no sexism in the media and that it did not contribute to her loss.  why is the onus on me to prove that it was?  IT IS MY OPINION that KO and the commenter are mistaken.

so sorry - my argument is as strong as anyone else.

by canadian gal 2008-06-13 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: hang on here.

You said

"proof?  what proof do you have that it didnt affect her loss?" You know that proving a negative is a lost cause. Expecting someone to do so isn't a strong argument, it's an unfair trap, and it weakens your own case.

It's also been pointed out that Olbermann is not denying the existence of sexism in the media, he's simply disagreeing with the opinion that it was the cause of Clinton's defeat. That's an opinion that can be debated ad nauseum, as Olbermann acknowledges.

In terms of that opinion regarding the causal relationship you falsely attribute, when someone asks you whether you can prove your assertion that something existed, you can either provide evidence or not. You can't turn around and say "no, you have to prove it didn't exist." Sorry, that's a fail.

by BobzCat 2008-06-13 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: i don't know.

I personally feel that there were incidences of blatant sexism by some commentators on the cable news networks.  I don't think they even knew that what they were saying was sexist (isn't that how it goes with most -isms).  

But I also feel that the  sexism was not a consistent every day thing, but rather a collection of a few marked incidents across several outlets.  Additionally, the vast majority of the sexist statements were made on opinion shows or opinion sections on the cable news networks and not with news dissemination itself.  

Chris Matthews opined that Clinton was only where she was because her husband cheated on her.  That's his opinion, probably based on latent sexism, but it's not fact and it's not news.  Pat Buchanan thinks that blacks should be grateful for all the welfare they get from this country.  That's his opinion, probably based on latent racism, but it's not news.  I agree they should be called out on it, and thankfully both those types of statements are rare in the media.  But it explains why they're not taken to task for it, because it's their opinion, which they're entitled to and based on their interpretation of factual data.

Finally, the Clinton campaign did use the media as a talking point.  From NH on, they blamed the media for being too soft on their opponent and later too sexist.  While there were certainly examples of sexism, I do feel that the issue was pushed as a talking point to deflect criticism of the campaign's failures and to rally a base of women around Clinton.

Full disclosure, I'm male, so I probably do not notice as much sexism as a woman.  However, 2 of my last 3 bosses have been women.  I was raised by a single mother, who majored in womens' studies.  The vast majority of the fathers/husbands in my extended family I've never met (meaning women were the only role models I had growing up).  This does not give me 20/20 vision when it comes to sexism.  But I just haven't seen it as much as it often as some have.  For instance, I still do not believe that the phrase, "periodically, when she's down" is a sexist one.

by shalca 2008-06-12 10:46PM | 0 recs
thanks for a great comment.

and i agree with everything you said except that sexism wasnt a consistent everyday thing.

by canadian gal 2008-06-12 10:51PM | 0 recs
They didn't bring to light the sexism

in society.  You are believing your own talking point.

The Clintons had a monopoly on the network news and cable news surrogates for more than a year, including Begala and Carville and many others as paid "analysts" pretending to be neutral until they were called on it last January.  

The Clintons entered the past contest with all the advantages of a shadow presidential administration in exile.  The fact that they lost can't be attributed to either the media OR sexism, but to the fact that the dogs just didn't want to eat the dog food.

It shouldn't have even been close.  Even Hillary predicted it would be over by Feb 5.  

You're trying to revive transparent and decaying talking points from the primary season when the primaries are over.  Get used to it.  They lost.

by Dumbo 2008-06-13 02:07AM | 0 recs
Sometimes I almost want to vote McCain

just to protest some of these Clinton haters. HELLO?! If not for Bill Clinton making the party palatable in welfare and crime, not only would Dems have harder times than they do now getting to the white house, but Obama would never have a chance of being elected or even nominated.

by Lakrosse 2008-06-12 10:49PM | 0 recs
If you want to blame someone for Obama

kindly blame GWBush.

He activated an entire new electorate, and enraged the entire fucking creative class (just checked up on some of my former 'libertarian' friends. one of them was looking at richardson, last I checked).

by RisingTide 2008-06-13 07:43AM | 0 recs
I've had it with this anti-Keith stuff.

Search Google news for "Hillary enemies."  You'll find articles like this at the top.

Political Memo
Those Loyal to the Clintons Take Note of Who Was Not

Published: June 11, 2008

[...]Mr. Band, who declined to comment, is hardly alone in tallying those considered to have crossed the former candidate or the former president in recent months by supporting Mr. Obama. As the Obama bandwagon has swelled, so have the lists of people Clinton loyalists regard as some variation of "ingrate," "traitor" or "enemy," according to the associates and campaign officials, who would speak only on condition of anonymity.

Philippe Reines, a spokesman for both Clintons, said neither kept any specific catalog of those believed to have wronged them. "There is no list," Mr. Reines said.

The lists maintained by supporters tend to be less formal documents than spoken diatribes, with offenders' names spat forth in rants, gripe sessions and post-mortems...

What kind of people are on their list?

Several names and entities are common among various list makers. The lineup invariably begins with A-list members like Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico; Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the House Democratic whip; Gregory B. Craig, Mr. Clinton's lawyer in his impeachment and trial; David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's chief strategist; Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri; and several Kennedys. Some members of the Democratic Party's rules committee, the state of Iowa and the caucus system in general are also near the top.

The news media have already focused on some list entries, including the online gossip purveyor Matt Drudge (who had the nerve to show up at Mrs. Clinton's departure speech on Saturday), Todd S. Purdum of Vanity Fair (the author of a recent profile of Mr. Clinton) and the cable network MSNBC (whose hosts Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are charter list members, Clinton associates said).

The lists are also reported to include lesser-known Obama-supporting members of Congress (for whom the Clintons campaigned), former ambassadors (appointed by Mr. Clinton) or Clinton White House officials turned Obama advisers (like Anthony Lake, a former national security adviser, and Susan Rice, a former White House and State Department official)...

Yeah.  Keith Olbermann, probably the single most progressive-friendly anchor in cable news, is the new whipping boy for the Clinton die-hards that want to punish somebody, anybody.  Richard Mellon Scaife, the villain of the 1998 Arkansas Project, is just a good ol' boy now, but Keith Olbermann is a villain!

Let's remember who Keith Olbermann is.  When nobody wanted to cover Plamegate, Keith and David Shuster (another Clinton enemy) were the only ones that were willing to report about it.  Olbermann has covered all the stories that people like Wolf Blitzer at CNN and anybody at all at Fox News shied away from.  And he spoke out, vociferously, against Bush when the cowards serving us in Congress (like certain ex-candidates) wouldn't do shit to resist the fascist march of Bush and the neocons.  

We needed somebody like Olbermann.  I'm sorry he wasn't more perfect.

Right now, on the rec list, there is a diary telling everybody to be nice to certain left-wing pro-Clinton diarists who are still raving on other blogs Swiftboat-style lies and attacks against the winning candidate of the nomination.  But Keith Olbermann is so awful he deserves his own verb.

Learn who your real enemies are.

by Dumbo 2008-06-13 02:02AM | 0 recs
Re: I've had it with this anti-Keith stuff.

This is why us progressives aren't allowed nice things...

We get one damn progressive voice on television and a few kids get upset because he doesn't blindly support Clinton once it was over for her.

Short memories.  Olbermann quit his first job at MSNBC because of the medias fascination with Bill's BJ.  Olbermann was the first to interview and support Bill when Fox News tried to pin 9/11 on Bill.  Olbermann personally wrote a check to Bill's foundation at the end of said interview.  Olbermann was even extremely supportive of Clinton to begin the primary, even to the point where he appeared pro-Hillary until she had little to no shot of winning.  Short memories.  

So yes, lets have some people try to destroy KO.  Lets go back to the dark ages of cable news where it's RAH RAH RAH Bush and no progressive voice is allowed to speak.  I'm sure that removing the sole progressive voice in the media will spur them to hire MORE progressives.  

by tqdmcgee 2008-06-13 03:29AM | 0 recs
Re: I've had it with this anti-Keith stuff.

If Olbermann had directed those fatuous, faux-indignant Special Comments about Ferraro and RFK at me, he'd be on my shitlist, too. Not to mention his Sopranos hit fantasy and the stop-the presses coverage of snooping around Obama's passport file--is Hillary behind it? I don't know if reports of this Clinton shitlist are accurate, but I certainly wouldn't blame Hillary or Bill for having one.

As far as the other stuff goes, all Olbermann did was appropriate the work of Glenn Greenwald and others. He didn't allocate one thin dime to research and report on it, and he never told me anything I hadn't already read elsewhere. Ratings were falling on the rah-rah Bush stuff, and Olbermann saw a way to attract a new audience. He found a niche to exploit and he did so. After what happened to Phil Donahue and Ashleigh Banfield, I have no doubt he got the GE and NBC bigwigs to sign off on it before he put it on the air.

by Pol C 2008-06-13 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: I've had it with this anti-Keith stuff.

that diary was put up in response to another where people were talking about going after said diarist in RL.

by canadian gal 2008-06-13 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

Wow.  I'm having trouble picking the bigger asshole in this dust-up, sort of like watching the great Hasselback/ODonnell Debates.

Wasn't it Katie who gave us the infamous "Frigidaire" moment?  I'll buy into "keithing it" only if "copping a Katie" enters the vernacular to describe a woman "journalist" approaching woman candidates with the intellectual gravitas of Good Housekeeping.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-06-13 03:21AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith"

Keith Obamamann is no Ed Murrow.

These pundits who deem themselves progressive are more nasty in their sexism than a lot of the right wing.  Who would ever have thought that the progressive movement would evolve to this?

KO is the leftist incarnation of Bill O'Reilly.

And BHO is the Dem elites' own GWB incarnation: likeable, unqualified, crowned by Party elite and MSM.  Caveat emptor.

by moevaughn 2008-06-13 04:17AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith"

Actually, O'Reilly is preferable. As is Matthews. Yeah, they shout down their guests, and, in O'Reilly's case, occasionally cut the mike, but they allow people with differing opinions on the air. You will never see anyone on Olbermann's program who disagrees with him or challenges him on anything. Joseph Wilson and Craig Crawford used to be on regularly, but when they publicly expressed support for Clinton and skepticism of Obama, that was the end of them as far as Olbermann was concerned. Olbermann isn't as uncouth as O'Reilly or Matthews, but the refusal to allow discord or dissent is far more sinister and objectionable.

by Pol C 2008-06-13 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith"

good points. Honestly, I can't stand to watch Keih Obamamann anymore -- similar to not being able to stomach GWB.  Even though I politically disagree with O'Reilly, he's modified his tone somewhat, so if he has someone on program worth listening to, I'll watch it.

by moevaughn 2008-06-13 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

The last thing we need is this fruit loop telling women they are drinking Kool-aid for thinking that Clinton faced sexism, especially when the McCain campaign is doing this:

KO needs to take a nice, long vacation to Sibera.

by psychodrew 2008-06-13 06:10AM | 0 recs
Tastes like bitter.

This sounds a little like a vendetta.  You sure this isn't personal?

by HardWorkingWhitePerson 2008-06-13 06:32AM | 0 recs
Call him "Olber-womann"

Katie obviously struck raw nerve in Olberwomann and the leadership at MSNBC, and as these charges are not new, its clear this raw nerve has been festering for quite some time.

Calling it "nonsense" and being dismissive will not make it go away.

by dcrolg 2008-06-13 06:34AM | 0 recs
That's an odd way of mocking somone...

in a thread dedicated to calling out media sexism.

by nklein 2008-06-13 10:54AM | 0 recs
Keith - why don't you nominate yourself

once in a while?  

by activatedbybush 2008-06-13 06:41AM | 0 recs

He actually has, at least once.  For getting Bill Keller's responsibilities at the NYT wrong.

Olbermann's plenty capable of being self-analytical.  I'm guessing you don't like him anymore because he was harshly critical of Hillary Clinton.  Fine, but he's right here.  Kouric screwed up, and cowardly refused to name the journalist that supposedly admitted to media sexism.  Journalists shouldn't do that, and Keith was right to call her on that.

by corph 2008-06-13 07:01AM | 0 recs
Well, he should have put himself ahead

of Couric on that list.   I don't think that she was a coward.   She was showing some professional respect.   And frankly, her comment could have applied to a number of individuals in the news media who, like Mr. Olberman, fell off of the tortuous tightrope that the so-called "opinion news" people try to walk between being serious journalists and mouthpieces for one cause or the other.  MSNBC became Obama's Faux News during the campaign, to the point where their coverage was even more biased against Clinton than than of Fox (quite a feat).  I have no trouble with commentators who criticize public figures (that is what they are there for).  But unless they want to draw paychecks from the candidates that they support, and identify as members of their campaigns, they should avoid being blatantly one-sided and effectively becoming surrogates for the candidate that they clearly want to win.

So Keith Olberman, on at least a few days during this primary season, you were my personal "worst person in the wooorlld!!!"

by activatedbybush 2008-06-13 07:32AM | 0 recs

I'm sure that everyone who has said nasty things about clinton should write a diary sweetly singing her praises.

A lot of us were kinda afraid of what might happen after the voting ceased. Not hillary herself, but her backers (not supporters, bless their souls).

Fear does things to people -- they start seeing things that aren't about the woman but about the campaign.

I include Keith in that statement. Clinton has done, and will continue to do a ton for our country. We deserve a moment to apologize, and say thank you for running, Senator Clinton

by RisingTide 2008-06-13 07:55AM | 0 recs
I really don't understand your point - sorry

by activatedbybush 2008-06-13 09:53AM | 0 recs
my point is that primary season made fools

of us all.

take alegre (a great, dedicated poster), who at one point claimed that Obama had stolen Indiana from Clinton.

All the mass allegations of fraud from all sides are another example.

Keith did the same thing.

So now, I call for everyone to write a nice diary about your former opponent!

by RisingTide 2008-06-13 10:08AM | 0 recs

I agree with you that we should be cutting each other some slack as individuals (within reason) for things written and said in the primary battles.   There is a point to which personal attacks cannot be forgiven, but for the most part, they can and should be.

Olbermann's different.  He is a television "journalist" who had a bully pulpit from which to influence the election, but a duty of his profession to remain objective.  He crossed that line, cheerleading for one candidate vs. the other.  As such, he has forfeited his respectability as a professional.  

by activatedbybush 2008-06-13 11:15AM | 0 recs
You musta missed that article kos tossed up

... kos, mydd Olbermann are the new Left Propaganda Machine. Objectivity not required, just like it isn't on the Right.

Journalism extends the facade of "objectivity" -- which means that you have to print even facile idioticy, if some portion of your readership agrees with it. Or even if they don't, if someone wants to say it, you have to print it.

This is how we got the Swift Boaters for Truth, the Love Canal, and a lot of really poor reporting.

I miss muckrakers, and if Olbermann has a muckrake, I'm all for him! (TR's critique applies: "let him speak truth" -- and call him on baloney!)

by RisingTide 2008-06-13 11:21AM | 0 recs
Fair enough - I agree with your assessment

However, the same tactics and approach that repelled me on the right do the same on the left.  I do people like him more quarter when they attack the right, but when the assume sides in a family feud among two good liberal candidates (with almost identical voting records) I have nothing but contempt.  Granted, his shilling was directed against my candidate --would I have felt different if the shoe was on the other foot?  I'd like to say 100% no, but I can't honestly.

by activatedbybush 2008-06-13 01:15PM | 0 recs
I am quite frankly much more repulsed

by people pissed at Markos than people pissed at Olbermann.

Markos has more of a history of being fair and honest about everyone.

[as I'm a newcomer to this site, any similar commentary about Jerome will probably be taken at face value]

by RisingTide 2008-06-13 01:17PM | 0 recs

In some ways I give Markos more leeway.  He has his blog, and it's not in the public trust in the same way that Olberman's slot on national TV is.  He created a great site.   But fair?  Markos?  He was in bed with Obama in the matchup with Clinton.  But he's not a journalist.  He's part of a movement that embraces Obama's style of politics.  He is clearly a partisan figure.  The world has room for those.  I might not go to his site as much anymore (but I like a number of the bloggers there - NYCEVE, Bonddad, Poblano to name a few).   But it's his space and he is part of a movement.

by activatedbybush 2008-06-13 06:46PM | 0 recs
I'd be happy too

as soon as I feel sincerely warm feelings toward Hillary Clinton.  I mean, in theory the same could apply to George W. Bush, and no way in hell am I doing that.

by corph 2008-06-13 12:35PM | 0 recs
want me to write that diary?

it would be about the do not call list.

even the worst did somethign good. minor, but good.

by RisingTide 2008-06-13 12:52PM | 0 recs
It would be an interesting

exercise in issue compartmentalization.  Try it with a real provocative title like "kudos to Dubya!"

by corph 2008-06-13 01:05PM | 0 recs


by RisingTide 2008-06-13 01:10PM | 0 recs
I know!

Let's coin a new phrase for identifying all criticism of a female in the media as sexist. We'll call it "canadiangalism". :-)

by Travis Stark 2008-06-13 06:54AM | 0 recs
that's really funny and appropriate!

you're right and KO is right - there is no media sexism.  its all made up by a group of people who support HRC or secretly support HRC.  and even if there was sexism it had no effect on her campaign - I mean, I have no proof of it - but like KO I just KNOW it had no effect!  well done - i have seen the light!

by canadian gal 2008-06-13 07:02AM | 0 recs
There is sexism.

But 90% of what I've seen labeled as sexism has been criticism aimed at a female candidate. Which is more sexist, the Hillary nutcracker or the Obama jockstrap? I'd say it's a tossup.

All I'm saying CG, is that all criticism is not gender bias. That includes comments on attire, emotion, etc. Seeing sexism around every corner is just silly.

by Travis Stark 2008-06-13 07:13AM | 0 recs
there was a jockstrap?

no shit?

by RisingTide 2008-06-13 07:59AM | 0 recs
thank you so much for your sense of humor!

... we do expect you to call out fox for that 'baby mama' thingummy.

but we also expect you to keep the whole thing in perspective, and call out those who need it the mostest.

by RisingTide 2008-06-13 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: thank you so much for your sense of humor!

Why don't you tell Keith that?  The whole point is, this is a man whose selective outrage indicates that he inherently cannot put things "in perspective", and by naming Katie Couric the 'worstest' person in the world, he is not calling out those who need it the most.

..Unless you were addressing your remarks to Keith when you said "you"..?

by MMR2 2008-06-13 08:55AM | 0 recs
don't analyze the hugfish!

by RisingTide 2008-06-13 09:11AM | 0 recs
There is a phrase coined for you - it's TROLL

One does not need to assume that all criticism of Hillary Clinton in the media to be based on her gennder to conclude that there was gender bias in this election contest.

by activatedbybush 2008-06-13 07:35AM | 0 recs
Read what I said again, slowly

I said of course there was sexism in this campaign. There are a LOT of jerks in the world, and tons of people looking to make a buck off it. Hell, Fox News makes a bundle playing to the stupid. Want to see utter ignorance? Scroll through these pages of products for a while, and then tell me how the Hillary nutcracker was SO much more offensive.


by Travis Stark 2008-06-13 08:49AM | 0 recs

perpetual sense of outrage is getting wearying.  His outrage against Mr. Bush I certainly share, but he seems to be outraged more and more by just about anything that crosses his path.

by Beltway Dem 2008-06-13 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith's

Our own little Howard Beale, with stock options.

by NY Writer 2008-06-13 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

Oh, canadian gal, there are some things we will never agree on. Alas.

by really not a troll 2008-06-13 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

I do not think sexism is the issue here.  It exists, and it was very apparent during this primary cycle.  The more important issue is the nature of the media and their complete lack of journalistic standards on both sides, right and left.  Her point was about more than sexism, it was about cable news not being about news so much as being cheerleaders for specific candidates.  Keith has become just like Bill O, he has gone out of his way to attack a democrat that he dislikes and has gone out of his way to ignore the faults of a democrat he likes.  If this isn't the fox news model I don't know what is.  Fox made its name attacking Bill and Hillary, MSNBC of this cycle could be confused with fox of the 90's.  It does not stop with MSNBC, the media, ALL the media reveled in tearing her down whenever possible. Show me a piece about her campaign ending that wasn't expressing joy at her fall.  When coverage is this biased, and this hateful they should be looking for another line of work.  The supposed left leaning media has become no different that fox, they have become everything they have bashed for all these years.  KO was out of line, way off base, and clearly ignoring everything that has happened in the past year and a half.

by nyarch 2008-06-13 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

Love the term Keith'ing it. As a Hillary supporter my Countdown days are over.

But you need to understand, MSNBC = NBC. NBC = stock options. He's a company pup, a guy on the rise.

by NY Writer 2008-06-13 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

It's a bit ironic that this diary makes the rec list after Olbermann's scathing take-down of McCain makes the front page.

By all means, let's get rid of this vile sexist Keith Olbermann. Who needs voices like his, anyway?

by BobzCat 2008-06-13 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

So because he attacked McCain, we are supposed to give him a pass when he's out of line?? LOL

NO ONE is above criticism on this Earth. And Keith is hardly the "voice" I want speaking for me. He's a failed sportscaster, who for some reason has become an ubergod amongst his minions.

by Chelsea in 2020 2008-06-13 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

KO is an example of what it looks like when propagandists are on your side. We liberals are so used to seeing it from the opposing side, we don't recognize it as readily when it takes our side.

But make no mistake - KO is bad for the public discourse. Liberalism means rational argument and fair treatment of all voices, not lefty polemics to "balance" the righty polemics. democracy cannot survive long in a heated, emotional atmosphere. Fevered calls to action may be needed sometimes, but as a steady diet, they enslave thought and suppress dissent.

by itsthemedia 2008-06-13 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

Olbermann was spot on with his critique of Couric. This diary attributed things to him which are not supported by the segment in question.

Of course, disagreement with him is well and good. There are plenty of times when he's made me groan, but I can usually appreciate where he's coming from, even if I don't agree with the way he puts it. And occasionally I disagree in principle with a point he's making.

But the bottom line is that he's the only consistently progressive anchor with a prime-time cable show, broadcast three times a night. He's worthy of support, warts and all, because to lose him would leave liberal voices with no other venue but panels where they serve as foils for conservative hosts.

But as your comment demonstrates, there are those who wish he would go away, for reasons that are unclear. With terms like "failed sportscaster", "uebergod" and "minions," the disdain is pretty palpable. It seems like NO ONE would reach some standards.

by BobzCat 2008-06-13 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

i felt nauseus when KO was front paged here. whether or not i agree with his attacks, he's lost all credibility with me.

by darwinism 2008-06-13 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

You may want to take something for that. He's not going away.

I expect Olbermann to continue to get attention here for being the rare voice on television willing to take on the Bush-McCain lies directly, without pulling punches.

In 2004 he was the lone voice talking about irregularities in Ohio, which he did for several weeks after the rest of the media had accepted them. He was the first cable anchor to directly address and criticize the Bush administration in no uncertain terms, and he consistently reports on issues that the rest of the media ignores.

That's enough credibility for me, even if he's not perfect.

The format is a little goofy, but frankly, that's part of the show's self-aware irony, in which the "No. 1 story" is the most inane. The line between news and entertainment is one the show is referencing constantly, and often cleverly.

by BobzCat 2008-06-13 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

And the irregularities in Lake County on the night of the Indy primary? what did he have to say about that? Whatever credit he's gotten in the past has been spent. what he wants and what he thinks has trumped what is right and what is objective. in that sense, he should not treat himself as a serious journalist along the line of e. murrow. but i guess g.luck on that.

by darwinism 2008-06-13 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

You're just being cranky.

If you're implying there was fraud in Indiana, I suggest providing evidence. Wait, there really isn't any, is there. And Olbermann, like everyone else, did try to find out why the returns from Gary were arriving late, but he did so without leaping to conclusions or making unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud.

His Ohio response, meanwhile, was based on strong evidence of counting shenanigans and voter suppression, which he dutifully investigated and reported for weeks even as the other media outlets gave it a pass.

You're denying him credibility because he called out and criticized your preferred candidate. It's personal. I get that.

by BobzCat 2008-06-13 11:22AM | 0 recs
It's personal?

him saying that katie drinks the 'kool-aid' and is 'nonsense' is the definition of personal (unless he was being ironic). i get that.

finding out why it's returning late is one thing. everyone was wondering that. if the mayor of the largest city in that county was a hillary supporter, he'd be crying foul play and conspiracy in a very 'special comment'. his hyper-hypocrisy does make me cranky, i'm glad you get that.

by darwinism 2008-06-13 11:36AM | 0 recs
You sound like a Ron Paul type...

RP was against the war so his track record of racism and sexism and right wing neocon mentality was all supposed to go away.

Well, guess what.
If David Duke is against the war, and is against McCain should I respect him too????

Pat Buchanan has been against the war from the beginning....so ???????

Just because KO is right on some issues doesn't excuse him when he is acting like some holier than thou born again for the left.  The left has never been about "follow the leader" and blind loyalty.  

by Jjc2008 2008-06-13 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

The whole idea of having a daily segment naming the "Worst Person in the World" seems a bit shrk-jumpy to me in the first place. From the few segments I have seen, the "Worst Person in the World" often turns out to be someone who KO deems a threat to his career advancement - usually Bill-O.

Now Couric has dared to criticise a comment made on NBC (you know, the company that signs his paychecks), and KO is morally outraged. Think about what he is saying here: there is nobody in the world worse than Katy Couric? I can reel off a dozen names in my own government that are worse than her on her worst day.

Granted, Bill-O is an abject failure as a human being, but it seems to me that KO could have featured say, Dick Cheney as the "Worst Person in the World" every day for the past 7.5 years, and been a lot more accurate. Hyperbole can be effective, but KO has long since devolved from the hyperbolic to the merely absurd. In other words, he "Keithed it" years ago, and has never looked back.

by itsthemedia 2008-06-13 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

The question really is what are acceptable levels of sexism?

Cable news people didn't think they were being sexist but clever or funny. Tucker saying he has to cross his legs, or she-devil from Matthews. Or the analysis "can she cry?" etc.

Good and interesting that racism wasn't an issue. Well it was, in the sense that the media was so hyper-correct with Obama that you had the SNL sketches showing the absurdity of Russert's general over-solicitous tone toward Obama and blatant hostile tone toward Clinton.

The sad thing is that women in the workplace have to deal with this double standard every day, and this was on view in the collective unconscious, by the assassinate way the MSM, especially Fox and MSNBC (I always found CNN more fair) acted. Keith's attitude is the attitude of good old boys who have privileges they want protected.

by NY Writer 2008-06-13 08:11AM | 0 recs
Standing up ...applauding
I needed to read that, especially since I just got told to "F*ck off" for daring to criticize Rachel Maddow.  Sorry, but for me, the women who go on MSNBC are giving their approval to the sexism.  When do we stand up and say NO WAY.
Imagine if a racist like David Dukes had a show where he got away with blatant racist remarks frequently.  Would we admire a minority person for going on his network/show when the network show allowed and in many ways encouraged sexism?  Hell no.  Politicians and pundits were roundly skewered for continuing to call into Imus, as well as defend him, after his racial slurs.  But I criticize those who go onto MSNBC and I am told to F**K off....wow.
Progressive/liberals have apparently become quite rigid.
by Jjc2008 2008-06-13 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Standing up ...applauding

That's it..... lets destroy our only progressive outlet.  


by tqdmcgee 2008-06-13 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this because I have read all of the comments but Katie Couric interviewed Obama after he got the nomination and she was appalling.  She asked him over and over about putting Clinton on the ticket and one of her questions was would he just accept the situation and do it or would the thought make him go "Ewwww.." and she puckered up her face like she was eating something sour.  What a twit.  She is horrid.

by JustJennifer 2008-06-13 08:29AM | 0 recs
Just to put things in perspective

I think the worst person in the world yesterday would be Scalia and his dissenting decision on the ruling on Guantanamo. Couric isn't even on the same scale whatever you think about this issue.  

But Scalia is also why, with all our disagreements, we need to come together in the end.

by KateG 2008-06-13 08:53AM | 0 recs
obvious narrative

1. Keith is cool.

2. Keith delivers a couple scathing Special Comments about Hillary

3. Keith is sexist creep

4. Zzzzzzzz

by mikeinsf 2008-06-13 09:22AM | 0 recs
Keith is dead to me

Add Keith to the growing list of Judases:

Bill Richardson (endorsed Obama)
Andrew Young (endorsed Obama)
Move-On & democratic activists (endorsed Obama)
NARAL (endorsed Obama)
NY Times (endorsed Clinton then criticized her)
Jim Clyburn (called Bill on race-baiting tactics)
MSNBC (sexist)
Charlie Rangel (pressured Hill to concede)
Hillary Rosen (refused to be a bargaining chip)
Ed Rendell (said Hill can't bargain for VP)
NEWEST MEMBER: Keith Olbermann (sexist Hillary hater)

by ProfessorReo 2008-06-13 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

Ugh. Jumping the shark still works for me.

Keith Olbermann is my personal HERO.  He's the ONLY progressive on TV that always makes sense and does so intelligently and with pizazz. His McCain special comment was DA BOMB.  

Hillary lost because of her war votes and her mismanaged campaign.  If anything, sexism (as in "iron my shirt" and the media coverage of that) helped her immensely.  Just not enough to beat the better candidate.  

'Nuf said.  Sigh....

by JulieinVT 2008-06-13 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

I don't believe it helped her. Call me Ms. Skeptical here, but  I don't believe all the talk of calling her a bitch helped. I am so at a loss why its so threatening to acknowledge that sexism was a part of this mess and that its a harmful thing. I don't think anyone would dispute that racism was a part of it also and also harmful.

It just seems like such a completely separate issue from supporting Obama.  But somehow its all emotionally tied up in it.

by KateG 2008-06-13 10:01AM | 0 recs
spot on comment!

i totally agree - its like some people think that admitting sexism existed would affect their support for BO - it won't - but instead by denying it its making the divisions larger.

by canadian gal 2008-06-13 10:23AM | 0 recs
I just love it when

the sexist come around to tell us how sexism helps women.  

Gee maybe we can get some KKK members to tell us all how racism is good for Barack.

by Jjc2008 2008-06-13 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

I like it. I also like:

  • going OlberBoard, or Olberboarding
  • OlberBlown

And I have no love for Katie Couric, but KO is no E. R. Murrow and I resent that he stole his tagline.

by SophieL 2008-06-13 09:56AM | 0 recs
Couric is wrong

She says Obama did not have to confront the "racist equivalent" of the sexism exhibited toward Hillary, such as the "nutcracker"

WFT does she call this, then?

by 2501 2008-06-13 10:27AM | 0 recs
The Democratic Party should be proud

It had a primary contest between an African American and a woman.  Of course the bad side of that is somehow we are ranking oppression on some kind of emotional level. A sort of strange kind of competition.  That is what we get for being so darn ground breaking.

I suppose I do kind of understand the emotional response of these kinds of argument. If you say sexism or racism played a negative role, it somehow implies the other candidate didn't win fairly.  I think that is ridiculous. But I also think its absolute nonsense to say that sexism and racism weren't negative influences on both of these campaigns.  Ya can't deny the nutcracker OR the sockpuppet.  

by KateG 2008-06-13 10:37AM | 0 recs
I love KO, but...

I have to admit his Special Comments go on too long and are overheated.  His hero Edward R. Murrow developed his points INTELLECTUALLY, not emotionally.  I wish Keith would exhibit more self-discipline.  (But then again, his ratings are skyrocketing, so I'm not holding my breath.)

I agree with the diarist here that Keith's dismissive "Koolaidish" comment was inappropriate and distasteful, and his logic for making Katie Couric the WPITW choice was tortured, to say the least.  I'm not a fan of Hillary, and I think she lost the campaign for other reasons--but she was certainly the victim of sexism in the media and online.  KO was way off base here.

by paul minot 2008-06-13 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: I love KO, but...

Too much talking past each other.

From canadian gals diary.

'However you feel about her politics, I feel that Sen. Clinton received some of the most unfair, hostile coverage I've ever seen.'  She went on to say that latent sexism contributed, in part, to Hillary's defeat.


and I think she lost the campaign for other reasons

The Koolaidish comment, was in response to the idea that the sexism cost Hillary Clinton the election.  And criticized Couric for falling into line with the idea that pronounced sexism existed, which is not the same as saying sexism did not exist.  KO was addressing the comments canadian gal refered to in text, not the video she linked.  Which are two vastly different things.

by Tumult 2008-06-13 12:07PM | 0 recs
He's so defensive

Keith is a parody of himself anymore.  Overconfident as Bill'O was five years ago.  Stick a fork in him.  

by BPK80 2008-06-13 11:05AM | 0 recs
Ignorance is bliss.

You do not know what sexism is, neither does Katie Couric apparently.

Rachael Rachel Sklar is a hypocrite and a neanderthal when discussing sexism and misogyny.

Here is Rachel Sklar on the Trxas Debate Liveblog:

Rachel: Is that a five o'clock shadow? Is that a Barack-stache?
8:16 PM Rachel: I think Campbell looks stunning.
The camera loooooooves her.
Rachel: Wow, I am REALLY distracted by the Barack-stache.
Rachel: Feminist observation: CNN is the only debate-host that has had a female lead moderator.
8:24 PM I can count three women involved in moderating these debates: Campbell, Natalie Morales and Suzanne Malveaux.
Hilary: Media feminist retort. the five correspondents covering the campaign for CNN are all women. The red and blue teams as well as candy
Rachel: Point taken. And the Iowa debate lady who everyone was mean to.
Rachel: Jorge Ramos = Hott-ay Ramos

Well I snuck a Hilary Rosen comment in as well. Since canadian gal as well as media matters ect repeatedly call talking about physical characteristics of Hillary Clinton sexist, can we get a denunciation of Rachael Sklar as a sexist for her comments about Obama, and Jorge Ramos.  I am sure you are also deeply offended about Hilary Rosen refering to some CNN female correspondents as "candy".  Do you even understand what double standard means?

And things like crossing legs, and nutcracket could be references to how they percieve her attitude and personality.  Which is not sexist.  What was sexism was when Hillary Clinton was talking about women doing a good job of cleaning up, that she might invite them to help her clean up the White House, and when that is the riff and contest, the slogan "It takes a Clinton, to clean up after a Bush" is sexist.  But hey that stuff doesn't matter to you does it?

The biggest sexism has come out of the Clinton camp, with their archaic ideas of gender traits.  And the archaic need to be aggressive and macho to be successfully perceived as a leader.   It was the Clinton camp that tried to cast Obama as some effeminate weak, San Fransisco type man for not being aggressive enough, or willing to be open to negotiation.   Deny it all you want, but James Carville certainly showed that outdated type of perception when he tried to support Hillary  by stating she had more "testicles" than Obama.  Several other of her male supporters brought that type of thing up.   Funny that real instances of sexism were ignored, but people choose to be indignant and victimized by occurances that were not sexism.

And the "Iron, My Shirt"  idiots, were certainly sexist,  but that is the kind of sexist that would strengthen support for her among Democratic voters the majority of which are women.  Since that has been such a significant story, I wonder why it has not bee pursued?  Who were those two men?   Who did they end up voting for, if at all?
In the end it was far than something that represented the kind of pronounced sexism that would cost Hillary Clinton the election.

Rachel Sklar reacts: "To sit there on MSNBC and say that it's nonsense is a bit rich, considering that some of the higher-profile episodes of embarrassing sexist-or-perceived-as-sexist commentary has come from that network."

I really don't know why someone or a network should feel guilty about perceived-as-sexist commentary.  Does the fact that she included it mean she is admitting that a portion of what is being called sexist is not sexist just being perceived that way?

And  I just saw the clip on The Daily Show, so I am not sure if it was Katie Couric, but I think it was.   Didn't she make a face when talking about Clinton to Obama and say "Is she too blah!"(to be VP)?  Yeah that is a journalist we can trust!

by Tumult 2008-06-13 11:44AM | 0 recs
v. strange.

and your comment makes no sense since on one hand you say that making comments about one's personal appearance is sexist and then on the other stating that when it applies to HRC it is not.

by canadian gal 2008-06-13 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: v. strange.

No, I think it is absurd to consider any discussion of appearance or attractiveness as sexist or sexism.  I was trying to point out the absurdity.  Since you have put up diaries that called discussions of HRC's appearance sexist, and sexism.

by Tumult 2008-06-13 12:15PM | 0 recs
Your ignorance is surely your bliss

You remind me of the neocons who claim "reverse racism" and like to whine about how white men are being hurt.
HELLO....the power group is and always has been MEN.  In this country, primarily WHITE MEN.  Around the world MEN...black men, brown men, men of every ethnicity have had the power.

Your whining about Hillary's camp using sexism against Obama is at best laughable.  Considering how well honed the reverse racism, reverse sexism charges are trumped by the right, I wonder why any progressive would use them.

OVERWHELMINGLY MEN, not women have the power in this world of ours.  OVERWHELMINGLY MEN use power to dominate in most societies...physical power, financial power.  For the first time women saw a chance at real change and it has threatened so many men and reduced them to using sexism and minimizing it.
If those men held up placards for Obama saying "Shine my shoes" I guarantee the story would have been followed; they would have been fired; and no one would laugh and giggle about it.  And no one would minimize it and say it probably helped.....

Sheesh.....I am so frustrated by the ignorance ...

by Jjc2008 2008-06-13 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Your ignorance is surely your bliss
I am sure you are frustrated.
Therapy helps.
You might try switching to decaffeinated also.
by Tumult 2008-06-13 04:48PM | 0 recs
Ah ha...

no ability to debate so attack.  Hmmmm...I suspect you are very young.

by Jjc2008 2008-06-13 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Ah ha...

You were trying to debate?  That is quite scary.

I am more than willing and happy to respond if you make a comment that doesn't cause me to picture Jon Stewart going "Boopooh" in my head.

by Tumult 2008-06-13 06:39PM | 0 recs
Wait a minute

"And things like crossing legs, and nutcracket could be references to how they percieve her attitude and personality.  Which is not sexist."

That is patently ridiculous.  I  mean you have to go to great contortions not to see that as sexism.  Saying Hillary is an asshole, would not be sexist. Saying she would be an awful president is not sexist. But expressing fear the "castrating woman" is playing into some of the worst sexist rhetoric out there.

by KateG 2008-06-13 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Wait a minute

No you have to read something into it to see it as sexism, which is the point.  But even reading into it that it is about the "castrating woman" is not yet sexism.  You would have to also see it as a call to discrimination against her as a castrating woman, or a demand to keep her in gender specific roles for it to be sexism.  Which means you have to go fairly far down the path of reading things into it before you get to sexism.

While "cleaning" is directly a reference for a traditionally gender biased role, which makes it a direct sexist reference, rather than something that could be taken as sexist.  See the difference?

by Tumult 2008-06-13 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Wait a minute

Let me see if I can talk you through the way I see this (and I appreciate your response)

I do see that one is perhaps very slightly more overtly sexist. But it takes only a very slight tilt of the head to see nutcracker as sexist. Notice how it focuses on sexuality and hence gender ...nuts being the obvious reference. I have an emotional immediate reaction to it as a woman.

There are such things as coded language when you talk about prejudice.  Words used like "lynch" or "crusade" become very inappropriate when used in certain context.  When you use a nutcracker when talking about a woman candidate for president, then that to me is not a very subtle code.

 Here is the one thing I will add..Its not like we have been overwhelmed in our history with women as presidents or vice presidents. So something is going on in terms of gender, don't you think?  Obviously things have been going on with race as well and I am proud to support our current candidate.  I also hope talking about these things will assist us in the future.

by KateG 2008-06-13 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Wait a minute

I do not disagree with you.  But they also need context.  Based on comments from James Carville and other Hillary Supporters, it is not impossible that some would perceive Hillary as ball-buster as a postive, and Obama as pansy as negative.  The notion that men have to be strong, macho, aggressive ect would be sexist.  The idea that women have to be the same way would also be sexist.  But I have heard more references to men along the line of "He is busting my balls".  Then to women as castrating.  So I am less likely to directly attribute that as sexism.  But it is certainly possible based on context.

I think some people have more of a desire to see things in certain terms than others.   Like the Rachael Sklar comment within what I quoted above, about the various debate moderators, if 100% of the debate moderators were women I know I would never have noticed that.  And Hilary Rosen seemed to disagree that it was significant with her quick rebutal.  Just because people choose to see something as there does not mean it is, and just because I choose not to see it, doesnt mean it isn't.   But alot of the stories canadian gal has linked dealing with sexism, I know are not unique to Hillary Clinton.   John Edwards and the other candidates were largely ignored, Edwards until he dropped out had the biggest coverage over his haircut, Obama until he started winning seemed to have his biggest coverage over Arugula, and Kucinich who had the most progressive platform was not mentioned until the UFO sighting came up.  Certainly everyone but Obama and Clinton were victims of the media focusing on the big two, and those two were the victims of the media wanting to become tabloid, I am just not sure how much of the tabloid coverage can be labled as sexist or racist.  Canadian gal is undermining her argument with me by being too narrowly focused on instances of sexism, and more specifically only the instances that HRC was the victim of.  When some of the instances could not be sexism because it was done to both, and others originated from something other than sexism.

As far as I know, we have only had 1 woman on the ticket as vice president, and one woman compete in the primary for a shot at running for president.  Until we have an equal number of men and women running it is hard to say that because a woman did not get elected as VP or President that something is going on in terms of gender.  More men failed to become the party nominee than women this primary season, and regadless who wins the general election a man is going to lose.  It would be interesting to see what the success rate for women is that attempt a run for all elected offices is, throwing out elections where it would be impossible for that party affiliation to win.

The interesting thing to note, since you brought up women as VP, that this election cycle, it appears to be the supporters of Hillary Clinton that do not want to see "any woman but her" as VP.  Which is sexist.  And HRC supporters have in my opinion disrespect other capable women besides her with the notion that she is the only one that could win the presidency.   Go look at the Kathleen Sebelius resume,  pay attention to her time as the elected insurance comissioner, and some of the things she has done as Governor, in Red Kansas, and tell me she is not damn impressive, or that she needed loyalty to her unheard of husband to get where she is.  Then come back here and tell me that I should be less offended about the sexism comming out of the HRC supporters, then the idiots on TV.  For all that HRC is the supposed ultimate victim of the media, it is Obama smears that the media seems to need the cover of "it is being said",  or "it is a rumor that...".

by Tumult 2008-06-13 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Wait a minute

Again, I appreciate the dialogue. Not to quibble, but I would say that women not wanting anyone else but Hillary isn't  sexist.  It just indicates that they are narrow (in a way I find puzzling) in their vision of who should be a candidate.  Its not anti woman. Its anti anyone but Clinton, which is a different thing.  There are many women I will support for VP just as I will happily support our current candidate for president.

I think the problem is..why aren't their women candidates?  I mean of course a man is going to lose in the presidential race if there are only men running.  

You remember the Wright controversy. And Obama spoke to us all as adults and said..yes there was a reason for the anger in the black community.   Racism had real consequences in their lives and it forms people's visions of the world. Well I believe sexism does also. People have emotional responses to negative histories. Sometimes they see sexism where it doesn't exist. Not because they are lying but because they are responding to life long real experiences. And sometimes it is very real but comes at you in subtle ways, in coded language and images.  In references to dead rabbits and "staying in the tub" and "nutcrackers" And all your history and frustrations come back when you recognize the attitude reflected in those words.

 How can we ever totally untangle why Hillary lost.  A thread belongs to her campaign, a thread belongs to her policies perhaps, a thread belongs to that overwhelming  pull towards Obama for change, but some thread in there has to do with sexism I think.  And its worth it to examine it.

by KateG 2008-06-13 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Wait a minute

Anti anyone but Clinton would not be sexist.  Anti any woman but Clinton would be the very deffinition of sexist.  And that has been said by some Hillary Clinton supporters here.  Go make a VP diary about Sebelius or someone and see the response you get.  I even heard a news report that it was the one request Clinton made of Obama, not sure  if it is true, and given the media track record it probably isn't.

And Obama also said they made the mistake in thinking society was static.  Which is why some people are burdened by their history, and cannot move beyond it.  And I think if you see code, or read attitudes, at times you are falling into a trap of your own making.

And it is very much worth examining.  And I am sure sexism had an impact on the nomination, because they were so close it could not have done anything else.   But to the extent that sexism had a negative impact on Clinton, was it greater than the impact racism had on Obama?  Also with the majority of primary voters being female, would sexism for Clinton have more of an impact than sexism against Clinton?  And the groups that strongly supported Obama, younger voters, more educated voters and African Americans, two of those groups I would like to believe are less likely to be bias based voters.  I do not feel that the same could be said of the groups that Clinton seemed to get, in later primary states more than the earlier ones.   But one of Clinton's campaign tactics seem to be to try to turn the primary into a kind of referendum on women,  Obama did not need to do the same because he had strong support among AA without doing so (and Jesse Jackson proved that it would turn more people off than would help).

I have quoted this many times before but Jean Houston an old Hillary Clinton mentor said:

Ironically, Clinton's problem today, Houston said, may be that Obama has given better voice to that new pattern of possibility -- that he embodies a more female, inclusive approach to problem-solving, while Clinton has become mired in proving herself capable of emulating the male model, which requires combat and the demonization of enemies.

Which I think is an accurate assessment.  She also said  "But she is part of a dying breed, an archaic sensibility."  And I think this was partially responsible for the age disconnect.  The HRC style was appropriate for  the 80's and earlier, but was archaic for the most recent generations, people who joined the work force in the last 20-25 years, which is the age cutoff for the voting split.  I remember at the end of the 80s my father came home and said his company was adopting a new managment style, from the dominant unquestioned managers, to a team oriented leadership style. I think a 1950's-1970's manager would find themselves very out of place and reviled today.  I think Hillary Clinton missed that trend, because her life changed drastically when her husband won the presidency, and she never returned to that type of business environment.

I think all this talk of sexism has missed the real victories.  At no point during the primaries was Hillary Clinton questioned on ability to be commander and chief.  At no point, was her strength or toughness questioned.  I never saw any of the gender trait foolishness leveled at Clinton that I would have expected to see 20+ years ago.  All the really can't do the job damaging sexism was absent.  Instead we are talking about nutcrackers and silly references.  I think even Geraldine Ferraro would have laughed if you told her in 1984 that the first serious female primary contender only had to worry about references that she emasculated men.

The media has been disgusting and tabloid.  The only three people I can stand to listen to, have been Rachael Maddow,  Bill Moyer, and Jon Stewart.
I still for some reason turn one of the news stations on while doing other things, and believe me they have not been fair to any democrat. Go to Daily Kos and ask the Obama supporters what they thought of Chris Matthews  and you will see they don't like him any more than Clinton supporters do.  I think KO would be the only person Obama and Hillary supporters would really have different opinions on.

by Tumult 2008-06-13 06:33PM | 0 recs
She's one to talk...

She gave Hillary the most pandering (and sexist), softball interview on 60 minutes a few months ago.  It was like a tea party, where Hillary got questions about "her feelings", things she likes to eat, and highschool boys.  I was sickened when I saw it.

The worst part was they played it back to back with the Obama interview, where he was asked tough questions about policy by Mike Wallace.  It really highlighted the differences in their treatment.  Hillary wasn't treated as a serious contender by Katie Couric.  If that's how she wants a woman to be treated by the press, I think we should all be pretty disappointed in our view of sexism.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-06-13 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: She's one to talk...

Absolutely right.  I was just thinking the same thing, then i looked down at the screen name...

by Tenefly Ally 2008-06-13 01:04PM | 0 recs
This is a longer segment...

but it highlights the difference between the two interviews.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-06-13 01:07PM | 0 recs
I imagine you're pretty frustrated that KO

eventually floated to the Obama camp.  You're entitled to feel that way, though I'm sure it could be argued that he had logically cogent reasons for doing so.

That said, Katie Couric, from her trip to the green zone of Iraq, has been just another in a lineage of achors whose journalistic work is a joke.  I didn't see the Olberman segment, and I'm not endorsing it.  But in order to rally sympathy to your cause, I would recommend being a bit wary of using Katie Couric as an example of journalistic integrity.

by Tenefly Ally 2008-06-13 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

I agree there was a bias in the media's coverage of HRC and her campaign and it was ABSOLUTELY UNFAIR!

....in that she was continually given a pass for suspect claims of executive experience, her incredible claim of being "fully vetted", and her dubious business and personal associations, not the least of which was her long-time association with an unhinged, womanizing, word-parsing (aka lying) husband.

Make no mistake, I think holding a candidate responsible for everyone around them is unfair. But HRC and her people had no problem of ignoring the good of Rev. Wright and focusing on his 'unhingedness' so turnabout is fair play. Of course commenting on BO's association with Wright, his big ears, his smoking, Edwards hair, Kerry's windsuit, Gore's weight, etc is fair, but asking those same (silly) questions about HRC was misogyny. To HRC and her supporters claiming sexism I say: welcome to the wonderful world of presidential politics.

by bigdaddy 2008-06-13 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

Seems that some people are confusing journalism with punditry. Punditry/Talking heads like KO, Hannity and the like are entertainers. They are the Professional Wrestlers of TV. Realizing that they are there to editorialize, sensationalize, energize and entertain and everything else begins to make sense.

by bigdaddy 2008-06-13 04:17PM | 0 recs
Professional wrestlers are on tv.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-06-13 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

I'm sorry, but can anyone explain to me how they are able to defend Mr. Olbermann on this?  I've been reading through the diary and comments without watching the videos.  Now that I have, I really am amazed at the denial that some of you are obviously awash in...

by Mags 2008-06-13 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

This whole thread deserves to wash away into the digital wasteland. Keith O. may come on strong, but he's not a sexist. He's a commentator, not a reporter. He's a talking head that works for progressive, left-leaning commentary. He has an agenda. So what?

Katie Couric is a failure. She's a disgrace as a major news anchor. They put her at that desk because their ratings were collapsing and they thought they could draw ratings from their morning show loyalists. If they had any guts they would have taken a real reporter like Andrea Mitchell and put her behind the desk.

The two of them occupy different places in the TV coverage of news and events. KO is a commentator, or an OP-ED style talking head. Couric is an anchor which carries real weight. There was sexism to be sure, but Couric's outrage should be aimed in other places. Where was she when the sexism was in full swing. Why not speak out then? It's a cowardly and unprofessional act to come out from behind that desk and start preaching at people, when you held a plum position to do so at the moment.

by mikeplugh 2008-06-13 09:53PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

Couric really did show a lack of depth.  If her objectivity's never been challenged by any situation, then she's either a robot or she needs to get out more.  Her comments about her former colleague's candid statements about the challenge betray a shallowness and pretentiousness on her part.

Right on Keith!

by Drummond 2008-06-13 11:45PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'

Boy, and what's really disingenuous about this post is that the portion Keith was criticizing isn't even included on the video sampling.

by Drummond 2008-06-13 11:48PM | 0 recs
Re: 'Keith-ing it.'
sorry - there is no video of the luncheon.
  and if you guys want to pretend that he didnt call sexism nonsense - go ahead.  he did and that is what this post is about.
by canadian gal 2008-06-14 06:21AM | 0 recs
So wrong in so many different ways

1. Until the Iowa caucus, the mainstream media used one word to describe Sen. Clinton's ascendancy to the Democratic nomination: inevitable. Funny how we didn't hear any charges of sexism back then, in those halcyon Hillary days.

2. Then, she lost to a better organized candidate who consistently outworked and outsmarted her. So much for that "inevitable" tag, eh?

3. Frequent "Countdown" contributor Rachel Maddow has consistently been one of Sen. Clinton's harshest critics. I suppose some of you view the super-intelligent and insightful Ms. Maddow to be some sort of self-hating woman?

4. Keith Olbermann was rightly defending his colleague, Lee Cowan, for being honest.

5. Finally, history is filled with women -- Sacagawea, Amelia Earhart, Nellie Bly, et. al. -- who have paved their own way and contributed much to society. As much as I respect and admire Sen. Clinton, if it weren't for the fact that her husband was an ex-president, she wouldn't even be a Senator, let alone a potential presidential nominee.

6. Finally, part B -- Sen. Clinton's campaign, even though it fell short of its goal, has gone a long way toward erasing sexism from our culture. My 7-year-old is paying attention to the news for the first time in his life, and who does he see running for president? A woman and an African-American.

His generation will grow up thinking very differently than we did, and in this regard, all of America owes a tip of the hat to both Sens. Obama and Clinton.

by BenderRodriguez 2008-06-14 06:15AM | 0 recs
See my misplaced reply to your point 3...

... here.

by tbetz 2008-06-14 01:37PM | 0 recs
3. No, they consider Maddow a sellout.


STARR REPORT: Rachel Maddow got her prize--and poor Chris Matthews had to report it. On Saturday night, his cable channel was propagandizing its way through Nevada and South Carolina. And uh-oh! Shortly before 8 P.M. Eastern, Matthews introduced Pat Buchanan--and Maddow. As he did, he made an announcement--one he didn't seem to enjoy.

Reading from the teleprompter, he said that Maddow is now "an MSNBC political analyst." Darn it! We couldn't get our VCR running quickly enough to catch the talker's full comment. But we did capture him saying this, with a somewhat menacing aspect:

MATTHEWS (1/19/08): Congratulations. I didn't know anything about that, and if I had had anything to do with it, I might have gotten involved.

You're right--his words don't quite parse. And Rachel agreed to say ha ha ha, just like two old pals were joshing. But based on tone--and a decade of Matthews-watching--we would guess that Chris wasn't pleased at the revoltin' new development. We'd guess that Matthews wasn't pleased to see Maddow getting her prize.

Why would Matthews have been displeased? On the evening of the New Hampshire primary, Maddow broke every rule in the book; she told Matthews, to his face, right on the air, that liberals were saying that he was the cause of Hillary Clinton's win in New Hampshire--that his gender-based trashing of Hillary Clinton had made people very mad. This broke every rule of On-Air Pundit Conduct--and we at THE HOWLER joined many liberals in praising Maddow for it. And then, shazzam! A strange event! Within a few days, Maddow apparently told the AP about how great Matthews actually is (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/15/08). Maddow got right with a cable god. And soon, she had her prize!

Did Maddow run and lie about Matthews so she could land this big, brilliant plum? We don't have any way of knowing--but we've seen this gruesome movie a million times by now. Why would Maddow, a "progressive" woman, run off to praise Matthews, an utterly crazed woman-trasher? In the particular case, we have no idea--although we'll ask Maddow, one more time, to explain her peculiar comments. Until she does, we'll assume the worst--that Maddow is the latest self-dealer to trade the truth for her own success. We'll treat her with the contempt she has earned until she explains why she said what she did--why she praised this overt woman-hater on her way to her big career prize.

by tbetz 2008-06-14 12:12PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads