Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Keith, first let me say, I have thought you wonderful for years.  But last night, well, I'm done with you.  Had you been honest enough to publicly endorse Obama, then at least I would respect your next words, for they would have been the lies and distortions of an advocate.  However, your failure to do so makes you even less than what you criticize, for at least Senators Clinton and Obama admit they are politicians, advocating for their own election.  You pretend to be an uninterested observer, and are therefore a hypocrite and a liar, at least by omission.

Cross posted at the Big Orange Blog, where you can see censorship for unpopular opinions in action.

I need no regurgitate your sham from last night.  Your outrage, your "concern" (can you be a "concern troll" on TV?), are well established.  So is your hypocrisy.

First, your complaint is not so much with what Geraldine Ferraro said, for everybody agrees that was profoundly stupid and offensive.  The Clinton campaign itself said:

Williams reiterated Clinton's rejection of Ferraro's comments -- "I do not agree with that and you know it's regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides say things that veer off into the personal," said the New York Senator -- before adding: "We reject these false, personal and politically calculated attacks on the eve of a primary. This campaign should be about the leadership we need for a better future and these attacks serve only to divide the Democratic Party and the American people."

But that is not the problem.  The problem is, you quibble with the word "regrettable," claiming it insufficient.  You also pretend Clinton is the first and only candidate to inject race into the discussion.  In that, well, there is no other term, you are a damnable liar:

Are you familiar with the name "Jesse Jackson Jr."?  Of course you are. Do you remember when he said:

   ...there were tears that melted the Granite State. And those are tears that Mrs. Clinton cried on that day, clearly moved voters. She somehow connected with those voters.

   But those tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama.

or perhaps when he "played the race card" with black superdelegates:

He said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois had recently asked him "if it comes down to the last day and you're the only superdelegate? ... Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?

How did Obama respond?  Well, to date, he has YET to respond to the second quote.  How did he respond to the first one?  Did you explode with outrage, more concerned with protecting the Party than his campaign?  Is it a campaign, or a suicide pact?  Let's see, shall we?

It turns out he waited a week, then decided, having gotten what he needed out of it, to declare a "truce," and at the same time pretend he was innocent:

"I don't want the campaign at this stage to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, that we lose sight of why all of us are doing this," Mr. Obama told reporters at a news conference here. "We've got too much at stake at this time in our history to be engaging in this kind of silliness. I expect that other campaigns feel the same way."

...

"If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or in some way is unfair, I will speak out forcefully against it," he said. "I hope the other campaigns take the same approach."

I guess he just didn't "hear" Jackson's statements, eh?  Tell me Keith, is that a good defense for Hillary, too?  No?  Does the word "hypocrite" spring to mind yet?

Hillary apologized from Bill's comment in South Carolina about Jesse Jackson.  Has Obama apologized for Michelle's comment, her blatant appeal to race?

With polls showing African-Americans have yet to give overwhelming support to White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), his wife Michelle said "black America will wake up and get it" in an interview running on MSNBC on Monday.

And while we're at it, which candidate ran an ad saying the other "doesn't respect our people"?  Well, Obama.

Keith, some Hillary supporters have said stupid things.  The problem is, so have some Obama supporters, including his wife and his co-chair.  Why is it, then, that only the Clinton campaign deserves on of your "Special Comments?  

Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro, Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson Jr., Keith Olbermann, Michelle Obama (all tags)

Comments

219 Comments

Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

I lost all respect for Keith Olberman when he referred to the campaign  and David Duke. I will not watch him again. As it is, I have drastically reduced my watching of MSNBC. I just took it down another notch.

by LadyEagle 2008-03-13 06:34AM | 0 recs
Pat Buchanan
is the only person I can watch on that network.  Amazing isn't it?
I would like to watch Abrams but while he is reasonable, his quests are too often Clinton haters.
Who is that despicable creep from HuffingtonPost that he always has on?  He has got to be the snottiest liberal pundit out there.  He drips hate.
by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-03-13 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Pat Buchanan

TiP... for the love of all that is good, don't be so silly as to percieve that for ONE MOMENT that Pat Buchanon is a decent man.  

Now THAT person IS a racist!!  

The ONLY reason that he is continually propping up Hillary is the SAME reason that hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of the RW shills do.... they KNOW that Hillary is the weaker general election candidate!!!

That...and if the laws of pysics change somehow and she somehow ekes out a Kerry-esque win should she procure the nomination...the righties STILL WIN as their lagging fortunes and ratings will rebound courtesy of the anti-clinton hate machine.

Get it?

by a gunslinger 2008-03-13 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Pat Buchanan

Right - a guy with no resume for the job of president, a singular lack of accomplishments (other than winning a elections) an undefined presence in the American culture, who belongs to a church with an overtly racist, misogynist preacher, who had a mob affiliate under investigation by a federal prosecutor do him a personal favor to the tune of $625k is the strongest candidate - as opposed to a women with a 35 year history of progressive action, a full term in the senate, and a husband whose presidency produced the longest economic expansion in history, the lowest unemployment rate in history (in particular, for African Americans as well), the highest wages in history (also true for the African American community), a balanced budget, falling terrorism rates and a successfully peaceful engagement in the world. Right - the GOP is afraid of Barry and Michelle and thinks they can trounce Bill and Hillary. Right. Right.

How deep delusion runs. Staggering.

Pat Buchanan is racist and doesn't like the Clintons. However, when discussing politics, he thinks for himself and doesn't repeat the GOP talking points. What he was addressing was the dynamics of the race and he tends to get those things right. You can find him complimenting all sorts of people that you know he disagrees personally. But Pat loves politics, and he knows how the American people vote. He's rarely cynical or manipulative on that point.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Pat Buchanan

Little Otter,

As a matter of fact... yes the GOP IS more afraid of the candidate who is single-handedly getting more & NEW voters involved in politics for the first time, growing the deomcratic base rather than relying on the baby-boomers and senior citizens ALONE for votes.  Yes they are more afraid of that phenomena then they are of a polarizing baggage-laden duo that have more negatives than Mark Penn has excuses as to why he has destroyed Hillary's chances.

Delusion indeed runs deep, and you my friend have seemingly an endless ladel which which to draw out mouthful anfter mouthful.

Why, if Obama is such a weakling, DO the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Buchannon, Bortz ,etc. prop Hillary up at every occassion, and in some cases actually SEND thirt listeners out to vote for her majesty?  Out of recognition that they have been wrong all these years and they owe the clinton's some love?  

Dip that ladel again.

by a gunslinger 2008-03-13 08:02AM | 0 recs
The GOP is afraid of EITHER candidate

emerging from the primary race strong and with a united party behond him or her.  So it is in their best interest to promote whomever in order to keep the race going and foment divisiveness.  

Of interest, running against "any Democrat" McCain loses by almost 20 percentage points.  Running against Obama or Clinton it's a statistical dead heat.  

Why?  Because so much has been made within the primary of the weaknesses of BOTH Democrats and anything that looks like rancor or bad blood is conflated by the media.

The staff of MSNBC has been answering to the suits that write the checks from the beginning.  When it became a rating booster to finally look hard at Bush suddenly Olbermann grew eyes.   Now he's tapping into a new avid audience.

Truth and news have nothing to do with it.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-03-13 08:15AM | 0 recs
MSNBC is owned by the arms manufacturer GE

Lets face it, MSNBC, and its profits, don't really drop all that much into the bottom line of GE. GE's most profitable businesses are related to the military industrial complex. They are super profitable. The stock options and bonuses for Oberman and Matthews will be worth an additional millions if McCain is elected.  I don't think Obama can be elected in the GE.

by maxstar 2008-03-13 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Gunslinger

 Becasue the repubs are going to have a field day with this guy.

Here's just a couple of articles for ya.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?i d=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

http://www.blackcommentator.com/263/263_ cover_1_keeping_it_real_obama_euphoria.h tml

More and more people I run into out here in LA are really beginning to see something in him and are not so happy with it, and these were folks who have already voted for him.
  Take heed, although he may have had their votes in the primary he may not have them come the fall...trust me, they ain't happy.

 namaste.

by artsyker 2008-03-14 01:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Pat Buchanan

In regard to gunslinger's comments:  those NEW votes (young adults) that he is talking about historically don't show up to vote in the general election.  In 1972, McGovern got the nomination because of the huge youth vote and thus got the democratic nomination but lost the general election.  Why do you think they came up with superdelegates?  So that a tidal wave of youth votes in the primaries wouldn't sway the actual nomination and a loss like this wouldn't happen again. That is a fact.  A full 40% of young adults between the ages of 18 to 24 describe themselves as independents according to an April poll by the Harvard Institute of Politics and because of that the Replicans may still take the election.  I'm a Democratic but I don't think either Obama with his maniacal youth vote or Hillary will win against McCain in the general election.  I think a ticket with both of them together might do the trick otherwise we're lost.

by yheitman 2008-03-15 11:48PM | 0 recs
Yes, I've always liked Pat, but....

He did buy into the Dick Morris view that the Clintons played the race card to paint Obama as the "black" candidate and Buchanan's repetition of that analysis helped to legitimize it.  The logical fallacy of Morris' (a well known Clinton hater) view is that such a strategy, although it could pay off in the general election, could easily backfire in the Democratic primary making it an unwise strategy.  But, this analysis was incorporated so often in media narratives that it became generally accepted among Clinton opponents.

If Buchanan is now seeing things the other way, I'm happy for that.

by lombard 2008-03-13 10:54AM | 0 recs
Little Known Fact about Pat

He was the only one in the Nixon gang who refused to go along with Watergate.

by internetstar 2008-03-13 11:17AM | 0 recs
What?
Where the hell did I say I am judging by one incident?  There are a hell of a lot more than one incident where old Pat sound a hell of a lot smarter than the Obama loving morons on the rest of the network.
I know the man and I know his history.  What is sad is that give all of that, he makes more sense than you do.
by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-03-14 05:29AM | 0 recs
i feel EXACTLY the same

as all the PC Obama supporters try to forget Obama played the race card thruout this campaign, and Buchanan finally gave it to one of them last nite

by DiamondJay 2008-03-13 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Pat Buchanan

People like you just proved my point you are more concerned with YOUR candidate Hillary than the Democratic Party or the liberal movement or whatever else. Pat BUchanan said a kind word or what may be construed as fair to your canddiate and all of a sudden, he is not on your shit list?

Hell, Buchanan was initially on my side with the iraq war. I did not go crazy and say that I prefer him to some of the progressives who may not have been on board.

by Pravin 2008-03-13 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Pat Buchanan

I don't think that Obama is a true Democrat or part of the Liberal Movement.

by maxstar 2008-03-13 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Pat Buchanan

Obama was ranked the most liberal Senator by the National Journal.

He is leading in the popular vote, delegate count, and number of states won for the DEMOCRATIC presidential nomination.

Meanwhile, the Clinton's were instrumental in the formulation of the DLC movement, whose goal has been to move the party platform to the center.

Explain to me how Obama is not a true Democrat or part of the liberal movement, yet Hillary Clinton is.

by doschi 2008-03-13 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Pat Buchanan

"Obama was ranked the most liberal Senator by the National Journal."

FYI--Media Matters called out the National Journal for the decidedly odd definition of a liberal and the weird methodology they used to come up with that ranking.  It's not a reliable source for this kind of conversation.

by newhorizon 2008-03-13 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Pat Buchanan

OK, how about this?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama. htm

(scroll to bottom)

"Barack Obama is a Hard-Core Liberal."

by doschi 2008-03-13 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Most liberal

not so if it turns out he actually did have an anti gay singer at a function.
  Anti-gay and using the race baiting-looking more and more like a repub everyday.

namaste.

by artsyker 2008-03-14 01:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Pat Buchanan

Look at the very beginning of the diary.  Typical.  KO was awesome, greatest thing on the teevee until he disagreed with Hilary and pointed out a failure of hers.  Math was reliable stuff until it was not in Hilary's favor.  Hilary was gonna run in each and every state until they didn't matter because she lost them.  She didn't object to caucuses until she started losing them.  She agreed that none of the candidates would participate in Florida or Michigan and the delegates from those states wouldn't be seated until she really needed them.  Obama wasn't ready until she found it expedient to suggest him as a veep.  

Like I said, KO was a beacon of truth until the truth was "unfortunate" as Hilary might say.

by lockewasright 2008-03-13 06:27PM | 0 recs
nope
I watched exactly two of his special comments before I turned him off in boredom.  I always appreciated that there was finally some one willing to call out bush, but I was bored with then ranting self righteousness.  
Now I dislike him for being a rating seeking sycophant loving diarist at dkos and a hypocrite and another MSNBC pundit for Obama who will do anything to bash Clinton.
by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-03-14 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: nope

First sentence of the diary:

"Keith, first let me say, I have thought you wonderful for years."

That's what I was talking about.  That and the pattern that I pointed out.

BTW, your signature line would strike a solid blow execpt Obama is winning even if you don't count the caucuses.

by lockewasright 2008-03-14 05:44AM | 0 recs
Well, its an honest comment

People hated by Hillary supporters:
Keith Olbermann
Rachel Maddow
Huffingtonpost snotty liberal pundits
Barack Obama
Ted Kennedy
Russ Feingold

People liked by Hillary supporters:
Rush Limbaugh
Pat Buchanan
National Review (who just signed on to Limbaugh's "help Hillary to hurt Democrats" campaign)
John McCain (who's "passed the threshold" to be Commander-in-Chief, even though he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years)
the DLC
Mark Penn (easily worth his $4 million a month)

Nice company you folks are keeping.  And yes, of course, both Sen. Obama and I are BFFs with Rezko.    

by bosdcla14 2008-03-13 12:17PM | 0 recs
Love it/Hate it

For the record, I hated Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold long before this race. Gas bags, both of em.

Huffington has made Clinton hating a past time so she and Mo Dowd can go sommewhere and infantilize world leaders but I do not have to read them.

And Limbaugh cannot get any of my love but I do like that Pat Buchanan has been the uncomfortable uncle of the Republican party for the last fifteen years.  I dont agree with him but I appreciate the discomfort he brings with him. Zell Miller and Sam Nunn are really just telegraphing Pat.  
It is also why I cant really hate Christie Todd Whitman either. She is worthless but every time they pan to her at the RNCC I smile a little.

I have always like the NR-the hotline is the bomb.

I dont know how to feel about Mark Penn except that he is maybe too sweaty to be an television.  He has sweat glands for radio.   (Yes, I am pissed that Hillary spends that much on him but this is not the first time people have wasted their money on someone. I mean, Bob Shrum still gets work.)

by hctb 2008-03-13 10:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Pat Buchanan

"Pat Buchanan is the only person I can watch on that network."

Yep, that explains a lot.

by chinapaulo 2008-03-13 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Pat Buchanan

The republican.  That's the only one, eh?  Hmm.  Wonder what that means.

by lockewasright 2008-03-13 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

I used to watch Obermann but like you i have passed lately and am just not interested in 60 minutes of bashing HRC.  

david

by giusd 2008-03-13 08:16AM | 0 recs
Keith Olbermann, big Hillary supporter

until last week.  Or didn't you know?  There are some places a Democrat should never go, and Hillary's been caught going to those places numerous times.  But with them it's never about the Party, it's all about the Clintons and how they must win at any cost, even to throwing the election to McCain.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-13 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, big Hillary supporter

since last week?  Are you kidding?  Keith Olbermann has been bashing Hillary Clinton nightly on his show since the night after his ridiculously over-the-top apology for the David Schuster incident.  Starting the very next evening, he ran eight shows in a row where the first quarter of the show was devoted to attacking Hillary Clinton.

Now, when I want to know what the Obama campaign's anti-Hillary meme of the moment happens to be, I just turn on Keith Olbermann.

by mtnspirit 2008-03-13 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, big Hillary supporter
That is exactly the date that I noticed the bashing begin, also.
At that point I started seeing references to  Keith's being influenced by the wiles of his 23 year old girlfriend, Katy Tur.
Of course, I just heard this from someone, in much the same way Keith reported someone just heard from someone else that Hillary Clinton had also contacted the Canadian Government about NAFTA and repeated it on his show.
I think that's the same night he allowed Howard Fineman to go unchallenged when he asserted that HRC was just a puppet of her husband.
by sgary 2008-03-13 10:37AM | 0 recs
Olbermann's Sage Advice Lost on the Tone Deaf

Too many have abandoned all their logic to fit in with the cult of personality that surrounds Hillary Clinton.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-03-13 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Olbermann

he wouldn't know sage advice if it bit him in the ass.  He's just a partisan and one without the guts to admit it.  

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-03-14 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Open your eyes

Not watching, will of course, make the damage that Olbermann is pointing out go away?

This seems to be a typical Hillaryphile response, "If my candidate does something ugly I will close my eyes till it goes away."

If that doesn't work you can always fall back on the second line of defense, "It must be Obama's fault."

Wake-up, at least consider the fact that a majority of Dems agree with Obermann's comments.  We are disgusted by Ferraro's comments and the pattern of comments coming from Hillary's surrogates.

Pile this on top of Hillary's right-wing talking points on fitness to be CIC, and we see Hillary as a Kamikaze.

Just because you disagree, doesn't make it go away.

by upper left 2008-03-13 08:45AM | 0 recs
Um

"This seems to be a typical Hillaryphile (Obama supporter) response, "If my candidate does something ugly I will close my eyes till it goes away."

If that doesn't work you can always fall back on the second line of defense, "It must be Obama's (Hillary's) fault."

Don't you think this works both ways?  Kinda like being "in love", blind to whatever could be seen as bad or wrong and taking his/her side if anyone makes a derrogatory remark?

This is fine IMHO, just as long as we see what we're naturally prone to do.

BTW, I'm not a Hillary fan nor am I an Obama fan.  Right now, I'm VERY disappointed at the level of hostilities in my party and am VERY concerned about - the military and their families who will lay down their lives and give up their loves if we don't get this thing right!

Yes, I know, Hillary voted FOR the AUMF and that's why I can't be FOR her.  On the other hand, I don't know how Obama would have voted had he had the chance despite the rhetoric.  And neither do you ... and neither does he for that matter because one never knows what "might have been".  

by Southern Mouth 2008-03-13 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re:Yes, but no equivalence

As a matter of logic, your point is well taken.  It is certainly true that each side's POV shapes their perception: they are likely to give the benefit of the doubt to their own candidate and quick to assume the worst about the other. However, the notion that there is equivalence between Obama and Hillary on use of negative campaign tactics, or in turning a blind eye to the misbehavior of their own side, is simply not credible.  

Much of the media relies on a similar formulation by saying "Obama and Hillary camps attack each other."  I believe that it is objectively clear that HRC has thrown the vast majority of the mud in this campaign, and has picked up the most damaging Republican frames.  Obama's attempts to defend himself from false accusations are equated with Hillary's distortions of his record.

I too am concerned about our party.  Given the delegate count, and the popular vote totals, I think it is clear that Hillary's only path to the nomination is to damage Obama and try to use the MI and FL delegations and the SDs to wrest victory from Obama's grasp in a highly destructive manner.  A manner that would leave the party fractured and make her almost sure to loose in the fall. Given this reality it is time to coalesce behind Obama and stop this destructive nonsense.  

by upper left 2008-03-14 07:11AM | 0 recs
There are many good reasons to avoid TV

If you avoid TV altogether, It will

(a) give you an extra 3 hours/day (or whatever it is that you spend now)

(b) make you smarter (yes, watching TV DOES make you stupid...evidence is fairly clear on that now)

(c) put more money in your wallet (you are less likely to be influenced by the commercials)

As an aside, if you stop watching TV, the pundits will finally shut up !

PS:  I stopped watching TV in 2004...and I do not miss it one bit.

by SevenStrings 2008-03-13 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

The whole MSNBC network is a disgrace .

I would wait to see his special comment on Obama 's preacher.

by lori 2008-03-13 06:35AM | 0 recs
how about Michelles misogynist brother
who accused Clinton of crying and even worse, of crying before every primary.  
These are thuggish people.  They know that this crap will hang out there in the air because Clinton will not play the victim about real sexism the way he has about imaginary racism.
by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-03-13 06:46AM | 0 recs
Keith Olbermann's wisdom, Ignore it at our peril

Hillary campaign is the disgrace here

by Lefty Coaster 2008-03-13 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

 I guess we will be seeing one of his childish puppet shows soon, which I`m sure somewhere in ozone he lives in, will pass for intelligent news. Boy do I miss the days of Cronkite.
by gunner 2008-03-13 06:35AM | 0 recs
Check out My Diary...

...the problem is that saying stupid things is one thing, as extemporaneous speech virtually assures gaffes.  

But Keith rightly called out a PATTERN of repetition which has emerged that evokes and implies planned remark designed to use race in place of issues.

GF said virtually the same thing forthe last 2 weeks, and (coincidentally?) since 2/5 the clinton campaign has been especially prone to racially tinged implications and statements.

KO has always been a consistent, brave and forthright commentator.  I have not always agreed with him, but to question his moral integrity soley because he called out Hillary's campaign is silly.

You probably thought he was a hero when he took on Iraq and Bush, did you not?

by a gunslinger 2008-03-13 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Check out My Diary...

 Yes, but I always thought he was pompus
by gunner 2008-03-13 06:38AM | 0 recs
Or even

pompous.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-13 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Check out My Diary...

There is nothing racist about any of the Clintons' rhetoric. The only racism is coming out of the Obama campaign, who can't hold African American voters any other way. Clinton has history to offer them - their lowest unemployment rate and the highest wages in history under her husband's administration. How does Obama combat that? By taking random comments - such as the fairy tale comment - and claiming they're racist statements. It's just a campaign tactic and a cynical one - but then Obama is nothing if not the cynic. Sad.

The Clintons have never engaged in any thing remotely racist - their brains don't work that way. But Obama's does, and he's doing real damage to the Democratic party. It's a shame.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Check out My Diary...

"Clinton has history to offer them - lowest unemployment and highest wages", etc ,etc....  

So we'll take recognize everything good that Bill did and credit that to Hillary but when it comes to NAFTA, health care reform, the World Trade Center bombing #1, we'll take no responsibility for that?  I see how this works.  

And who is doing damage to the Democratic party?  Let me guess...  It is the one who is ahead in delegates, the one who has won the largest number of states, the one who holds a virtual guarantee on the pledged delegates, the one who hasn't gone around insulting every state in the nation that doesn't happen to have 20 electoral votes.  

Yah, that's the candidate that is damaging the party.
 

by Rick in Eugene 2008-03-13 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Check out My Diary...
the highest wages in history under her husband's administration. How does Obama combat that?

That's the case for Hillary? That her husband did a great job?

No comment required.
by xtrarich 2008-03-13 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Check out My Diary...

I have noticed another pattern !!

The Obama camp has yelled RACISM at every opportunity, starting with the King/LBJ flap
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/16 2716.php

Obama did not morph into "the black candidate" without some heavy lifting by his campaign.  On that front, I am truly shocked (but not surprised, at this point) by this quote from Michelle that dhonig dug up... I must have missed it when it happened!

"With polls showing African-Americans have yet to give overwhelming support to White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), his wife Michelle said "black America will wake up and get it" in an interview running on MSNBC on Monday."

It looks like black America did get it, and the rest of America is getting it too.  This whole affair is so sickening that the Republicans Southern Strategy looks tame by comparison.

And to think that I was once considering sending him money (this was WAAAY back when he was proudly proclaiming his middle name as an asset, and promising to run without appealing to race)

by SevenStrings 2008-03-13 09:18AM | 0 recs
Hillary needs to define Obama as the Black Can.

That explains her surrogates repeated racist dog whistles. It's a deliberate strategy by her gutter campaign.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-03-13 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary needs to define Obama as the Black Can

The only dogwhistles I have noticed are the ones blown by Obama's surrogates and his campaign!!

by SevenStrings 2008-03-15 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

I use to be a big fan too. I'm flabbergasted. He doesn't even know he's being royally duped at dkos unless he's a republican.

I won't be watching him anymore.

by roseeriter 2008-03-13 06:39AM | 0 recs
KO doesn't know how much he's self-screwed
The Republicans will drop him the second the primaries are over.  He has lost half of his viewers (and all his credibility) by smearing Clinton.  He'll be left with a couple of people from Daily Kos, and he'll finally figure out that's where his hundreds of congratulatory emails are coming from.
His ratings will plummet, and he'll history.
Adios Olbermann, and good riddance.
by internetstar 2008-03-13 10:14AM | 0 recs
All you people are fucking amazing

KO hit your candidate for running a scorched-earth campaign.  She fully deserved what she got last night.  All of you and her need to stop it before you wreck our fucking party.

by Sean Robertson 2008-03-13 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: All you people are fucking amazing

Obama is destroying our party with his misogyny and his racism - not Clinton. Just look at how many Clinton voters won't vote for Obama if he's the nominee. If he's nominated, he'll hand the election to McCain - and it will be all Obama's fault for running the absolutely disgraceful campaign he has run.

He's splitting African Americans away from their allies in the Democratic party, and his is splitting women away from the party. By the time, Obama gets done, we'll have lost the bedrock of the Democratic party electorate - women.

There is no upside to the campaign Obama is running and his bogus charges of racism to anyone but Obama.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 07:33AM | 0 recs
Name one instance of misogyny

if you can.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-13 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Name one instance of misogyny

google "Obama 'claws out'"

by dhonig 2008-03-13 08:46AM | 0 recs
Big Deal.

This fails the outrage test entirely.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-13 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Big Deal.

Yes, it doesn't come close to the racism inherent in calling Obama an "intelligent young man."

by mtnspirit 2008-03-13 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Name one instance of misogyny

For instance, Obama's comment about "tea with ambassadors". No one who has ever read anything about the Clinton administration thinks Hillary's overseas activities were limited to tea with ambassadors. If nothing else, her speech in Beijin equating human right and women's rights - which was a groundbreaking pronouncement shatters that. There are numerous, first person testimonies out there of her time on the ground, as well as dominant position in the Clinton White House. Obama's "tea" remark relies entirely on ignorance and sexist assumptions for it's versimilitude. Entirely. And yet, the comment is at odds with the well-documented historical record. But without sexist assumptions, it's a statement that makes no sense.

It's identical to a white racist claiming that Obama's time in the state senate was spent shining shoes.

Then there is Obama's comment that Clinton "periodically" gets "down" and needs to "attack" to "boost her appeal". Fuck you, Obama, you misogynist asswipe. No, she's in a race for the presidency of the United States and she's attacking you because you're her opponent, just like you attack her. That comment should have been cause for Michelle to leave him - it's so off the charts sexist. When has a man running for the presidency been accused of attacking "perodically" to boost his appeal.

Then there is Michelle's rhetoric about how if you can't run your own house, yhou can't run the White House - blaming Hillary for Bill's infidelity. Creeepy.

The rhetoric from Obama's campaign is relentlessly, and overtly misogynist. I won't vote for him and I know lots of other 40 yo+ women who won't either - and we are the bedrock of the party electorate. We vote in larger numbers than men. and if he can't turn us out, because of this rhetoric, he cannot win. And i do not want a Democratic misogynist in the White House. I"ll take my chance with four more years of a Republican administration and fight again.

I live in California - a state Obama needs to win the WH if he's the nominee. And I will be doing everything I can to convince other women to not for the president out of protest of Obama's campaign.

What he has done is not acceptable in a Democrat. He has split African Americans off from their needed allies, and he has run against Hillary's gender. This is not a Democratic campaign he has run, and if he succeeds, he will shatter the party for a long time.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 09:02AM | 0 recs
Hillary is the one

who is doing her best to create chaos and plotting a superdelegate coup d'etat, destroying the Democratic party so that WHEN she loses the nomination (which she and you know perfectly well she cannot mathematically win,) there will be a McCain presidency and another feeble chance for her in 2012.  Face it, people, vote for Obama this fall or go to hell, we'll manage just fine without your sorry asses, as all the polls say we shall.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-13 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is the one

I dont think you get it...

A lot of HRC supporters (and ex-supporters, such as myself) do not care who wins and loses this stupid election.  We are just p*ss*d off, and for good reason.

I see your guy as the main culprit in this sordid affair, I see your guy as the one who started this sh*t.  And I see that HRC also shares some of the blame (specially recently)

But I also see your guy as being a disastrous President (even if he wins), if the present course of action continues!!

by SevenStrings 2008-03-13 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is the one

No, you won't manage just fine. You'll likely lose. Women vote in bigger numbers than men. And Obama has run a misogynist campaign. Younger women may not recognize the rhetoric as clearly, but anyone over 40 does. And it's women over 40 who put Democratic candidates over the top. And Obama is pissing them off. Big time.

Obama's campaign is the one threatening super-delegates with primary challenges if they don't buckle under and support Obama - not Hillary. You don't hear Hillary supporters going on tv and threatening people. The only coup is the one Obama is attempting to pull off.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 09:34AM | 0 recs
We shall not lose,

because we have the inspirational candidate who can win with a mandate.  You, on the other hand, have a candidate who would probably not win with the thoroughly discredited 50% plus one strategy that has brought us Bush these last few years, as all the polls tell us.  
   I know it's hard for you diehards to realize this, but you ain't the whole Democratic  party or the electorate in general.  You're just the DLC/screeching feminist/AIPAC wing of the party, and we don't need you to win.  We need the great fat middle, which is what Obama brings to the table by the millions.  People who are sickened by the Clintons and their bales of corporate cash and their sordid foreign dealings and their elastic morality; people who want a change from the same old partisan bickering on which you and your kind have built a lifetime of deeply enjoyable anger and bitterness.  So keep on trying to destroy the movement for change if it makes you feel important to be in here with your bile and your toxicity, patting each other on the back. No one outside this blog is listening to you.  It will do you no good at all.  You only harm yourself.

Oh, and there's no way mathematically for Hillary to win.  No way at all.  Let the healing begin.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-13 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: We shall not lose,

LOL - So Obama inspires you to engage in misogynist rhetoric against the base of the party. No one could have more generously demonstrated what the problem with Obama's campaign an drhetoric is than you just did.

Nobody is nastier, more partisan or more bitter than Obama supporters - best demonstrated by your little tantrum here. And not a single poll bears out your accusations about the clintons. Bill left office with the highest popularity rating in history, and remains an enormously popular figure.

People aren't sick of them. Obama supporters and GOP members who are both afraid of the Clinton winning streak are sick of them. Real people who want a functioning government run by competents aren't.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 10:18AM | 0 recs
You have no policy or Senate votes

upon which to fall back, thefore you fling misogyny against the wall at every opportunity.  There are women in Lebanon who are mourning their dead children who happened to pick up an interesting little heavy ball which turned out to be a U.S.-suppied cluster bomblet, courtesy of Hillary Clinton and AIPAC and the hawkish right wing of the Democratic party.  Obama voted for that ban on cluster munitions, which makes me proud.  This is where it counts, not rhetoric, but hard work and good judgment.  Hillary voted for every amendment to gut the ethics reform bill that Obama worked very hard to pass last year.  

  But you know all that, and it's just a big so what to you.  Who are you kidding, pretending to be progressives?  There is not a scintilla of doubt in my mind that if Obama were of the correct gender, every last one of you Hus and Marshes would be praising Obama to the skies and inveighing with all your choicest, most deeply felt jeremiads against the DLC Clintons, as you would be correct to do.  But no, the same face-painting, trance-dancing tribalist bullshit which has plagued personkind from time immemorial is on the ugliest of displays here, every hour of every day.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-13 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: You have no policy or Senate votes

You know, obama says nothing is off the table when it comes to Iran, don't you? He's just  towing what I'm sure you believe to be the AIPAC line there. And he's certainly more hawkish than Clinton on Pakistan - you don't see her threatening to invade unilaterally as part of her campaign presentation.

I think the guy is to the right of her on everything - but especially women's rights. Now that I've listened to Jeremiah Wright dump his hatred of women out, I at least know where it comes from.

Shame on obama for coming near that church and letting that man near his daughters.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 12:49PM | 0 recs
Toeing, dear Little Otter

not towing.  If Bush bombs Iran next month, he'll be secure in the knowledge that Hillary Clinton not only voted to authorize the Iraq invasion but also the designation of Iran's duly constituted army as a terrorist organization.  A move described by that screaming liberal Jim Webb as Bush's wildest dream.  Your candidate's foreign policy decisions are a complete disaster.  Read and know.  Frankly, I don't care a hoot about womens' rights at this stage, I just want to see some form of sanity return to U.S. foreign policy, then we can worry about the other stuff.

Oh, and I would like your specific response to Senator Clinton's cluster bomb vote.  Can you justify that?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-13 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Toeing, dear Little Otter

You don't give a hoot about women's rights - how utterly retrograde. I guess supporting Obama isn't about looking to the future now, is it? It's just about making sure a woman doesn't get in the White House.

As for her clusterbomb vote, you'll have to provide a bill number. I think her foreign policy record is quite fine - I'll take her reasoning over the Authorization to give Hans Blix what he needed to complete the inspections any day of the week over someone who doesn't know the difference between a personal opinion and the vote of an elected official.

Too bad Obama couldn't bothered to show up and vote on KL. But then he has a habit of that, doesn't he? Can't be bothered to work full time. Can't be bothered to vote yes or no. Can't be bothered to show up to vote. What would he do if he was president? He'd have to take a stand, and I don't think he knows how.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 02:15PM | 0 recs
My boy, you are going to get an education

in American politics in November.  If you think only a small number of DLC/screeching feminists/ and AIPACs will refuse to vote for Obama, you are going to see how out of touch you are.  Obama will win with a mandate?  If he wins at all, it will be a squeaker.  The great "fat middle" loving Obama?  I'll believe that when I see it.

Like most Obama supporters, you sound like you haven't been around long enough to have gained knowledge or wisdom based on personal experience.  So, maybe in November you can finally get a little of that.

by lombard 2008-03-13 11:06AM | 0 recs
I have been around longer than you, almost

certainly, you idiot. Never assume you know how old a person is by scribblings on a blog.   Now to your point:

  Every single one of the many republicans of my acquaintance has come to three conclusions, one tentative, two absolutely set in stone:  One is that Bush is an idiot, and they're sorry they voted for him, although they won't go so ar as to say so outright.  Number two, they are strongly considering voting for Obama.  Number three, they will never under any circumstances vote for Hillary.  Rightly or wrongly, she is a hated person by 47 percent of the country as you well know.  Which is why the polls have Hillary losing to McCain, and why Obama has won 29 states to Hillary's 15.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-13 11:41AM | 0 recs
Polls don't mean much now

Polls indicate flirting not commitment.  And if you've been around a long time without learning that, then maybe you're just a very slow learner.

And the fact that you would immediately use the word "idiot" in a reply indicates that you are immature in your reactions regardless of age.

by lombard 2008-03-13 11:47AM | 0 recs
If the shoe fits......

Not easy to condescend from below, but attempt it if you must, much in the manner of a dog walking on its hind legs.  Over and out.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-13 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: If the shoe fits......

Got your ass kicked, huh? '

It's like shooting fish in a bucket.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Name one instance of misogyny

So how will you Hillary supporters feel if McCain wins the Presidency and nominates a bunch of conservative justices to the Supreme Court that overturn Roe v. Wade?  Which is more important, taking your ball and going home because your girl didn't win, or sucking it up, taking a reality check, and supporting a candidate who at the very least shares an overwhelming majority of your views?

I for one think that Hillary has run a vile, disgusting campaign.  Seeing her spew some of the absolute bullshit that comes out of her mouth makes me want to throw the remote control through my TV screen.

That having been said, if she is the Democratic nominee, I will wear a clothespin on my nose and vote for her on the first Tuesday in November, because I know that at least we'll be better off with a Democratic President than another 4 years of Bush/Cheney/McCain.

by doschi 2008-03-13 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Name one instance of misogyny

Holy crap!!!!  You cannot possibly think half of that shit is anything more than you trying really fucking hard to find sexism.

If you think that every time a man uses the word "periodically" in your presence it's sexism you might be the most delusional person that I have ever seen outside of a hospital and maybe more importantly you are ridiculously self centered to think that men really think about your menses that much.  

Do yourself a favor.  Lose the crutch.  That's how one becomes worthy of the respect that you seem to think every male who ever disagrees with you is keeping from you.  

Save the leveling of sexism charges for when it's legitimate.    The constant use of sexism as a tool of convenience and, like I said, as a crutch serves only to point out that you feel you need such a crutch.  It detracts from the assertion that we are all equal regardless of our gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, etc..  I agree that we are.  You agree that we are.   I thought that all democrats agreed that we are.  Then Geraldine opened her mouth.

by lockewasright 2008-03-13 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Name one instance of misogyny
  Here's another over 40 woman who will not vote for obama if he is the nominee-
 write ins please.
by artsyker 2008-03-14 02:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Name one instance of misogyny

google  "if I were a woman, I would be ashamed for her"

by SevenStrings 2008-03-13 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Name one instance of misogyny

"You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out," Obama said.

Then yesterday Obama told reporters who had asked about Clinton's latest attack ad, "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."

Calling her visits to over 80 countries as first lady "tea parties"

by AnnC 2008-03-13 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: All you people are fucking amazing

Get this Otter.  What Geraldine Ferraro said, multiple times, (and back in 1988 also) is racist.  It did not come out of Clinton's mouth and I'm sure it never would.  But it did come out of Geraldine Ferraro's, she was unapologetic, and it offended A LOT of people.  That is not Obama being racist, that is Geraldine Ferraro being racist.

by shalca 2008-03-13 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: All you people are fucking amazing

Ferraro said nothing racist. She observed correctly that Obama is succeeding politically on the identity front and calling voters to him in that manner. She then observed that she was able to do the same thing.

He isn't a well-qualified candidate and no white guy with that resume would be allowed to run. All the other white guys who'd been waiting in line for years, and had better resumes, would be all over him. That's true. Sorta like Kerry triumphed over Dean and Edwards (both of which were candidates I liked far more). But Kerry had the resume.

just because Obama tells you something is racist, doesn't mean it is. Racism is when you denigrate someone or their accomplishments based on their race. Ferraro did not denigrate him or his achievements.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: All you people are fucking amazing

Do you know how insulting you're being to me right now?  No one told me that what she said was racist.  I heard what she said, in two different media and it was racist.  That's not an opinion, it's a fact.  Stating that someone is only where they are because of the color of their skin is denigrating that person's accomplishments based on thier race.

Please review -

http://www.dailybreeze.com//ci_8489268?I ADID=Search-www.dailybreeze.com-www.dail ybreeze.com

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqL_sm0J8 jc

"John, between me and you and your millions of listeners, if Barack Obama was a white man, would we be talking about this as a potential real problem from Hillary?"

by shalca 2008-03-13 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: All you people are fucking amazing

That isn't racist. It's a political observation. He doesn't have a resume. Kerry triumped over Edwards and Dean, in good part, because he had the better resume.

I've read the interview. She does not denigrate him in the least. It isn't racist. It's political and it's to the point.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: All you people are fucking amazing

If you cannot see the denigration in her comment, I can't help you see it.  I guarantee you that the majority of observers see the denigration in her comment and it isn't race-baiting to call her on it.

by shalca 2008-03-13 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: All you people are fucking amazing

OK, so if it's OK to say that Obama is only in the position he is in because he's black, then surely it's OK to say that Hillary's only in the position she's in because she's a woman and her last name is Clinton, right?

by doschi 2008-03-13 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: All you people are fucking amazing

If you want to make your point, show me the last time a white guy who had yet to serve a full term in high office (and no working part time in the Illinois state senate isn't high office) won the nomination for the Democratic party.

Go ahead. Put some meat on those bones.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 12:35PM | 0 recs
John Edwards should be an example

In 2004 John Edwards was the media darling candidate. He was a charismatic white Southerner with a boyish charm personality ala Bill Clinton. He served less then one term in the United States Senate.

Edwards would have been a stronger Democratic Nominee in 2004 than Kerry. But Democratic voters in 2004 choosed experience over charisma.

The Obamamites have to understand the anger from the Clintons.
Lets say you were a senior employers at your job- Worked years and years hard at your job- hoping for a promotion. One day their was an opening for Supervisory/Managerial Position. But the position went to an outsider with very little supervisory/managerial experience but he did extremely well in the job interview.

If I were Obama- I would acknowledge Clinton's 35 year service to this Country but elections are about the future- which Obama represents.

Obama should also select a woman on the ticket. my pick would be Janet Napolitano- AZ. Governor of a border state- Former State AG and prosecutor.

by nkpolitics 2008-03-13 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards should be an example

Thank you for making my point. John Edwards had served more years than obama in the Senate (his term ended in 2004), and he came nowhere near the nomination. This is what Ferraro is talking about. And Edwards had some genuine accomplishments as a trial lawyer. Obama has no real accomplishments to speak expect Harvard Law Review Editor. That's really about it.

I see nothing future oriented about Obama. He's not capable of pulling the future into focus. He has no acccomplishments. He doesn't get stuff done. With all the privilege he came into adulthood with, you think he would have done something noteworthy once he got out of Harvard. But no, he didn't.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: All you people are fucking amazing

Theodore Roosevelt

Took office as Governor of NY - January 1, 1899.
Took office as Vice President - March 4, 1901.
Assumed Presidency - Septermber 14, 1901.
---------------------------------------- -
Total "High Office" Experience - 2+ years.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Took office as Governor of NY - January 1, 1929.
Took office as President - March 4, 1933.
---------------------------------------- -
Total "High Office Experience - 4+ years

Abraham Lincoln

US House of Representatives (IL-07) - March 4, 1847 - March 3, 1849.
Took office as President - March 4, 1861
---------------------------------------- -
Total "High Office Experience" - Exactly 2 years

Where are those guys now?  Oh yeah.  Mt. Rushmore, the dime, the penny, the $5 bill...

by doschi 2008-03-13 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: All you people are fucking amazing

WOW Obama fans have to resort to using f--k.  Class real class.  Do you need anger management?

by bradydundee 2008-03-13 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: All you people are fucking amazing

The kind of racist rhetoric I have heard defending Geraldine Ferraro , you are lucky it is just the F word and no one is decking someone here.

by Pravin 2008-03-13 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: All you people are fucking amazing

This party is already wrecked when we have a portion of democrats and media pundits trading places with FOX News...against Senator Hillary Clinton. If Hillary is not the nominee, then, there will be no democratic president in 2008. Also, I truly hope she declines any piece-meal offering of being the vice president for a rookie. Obama is used to having people do the leg work, so he can get the credit. I believe a journalist from the Chicago area is releasing a journal depicting Obama's behavior in that regard.

by Check077 2008-03-14 06:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

A vote for Hillary is a vote against MSNBC.

by jfoster 2008-03-13 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Perhaps she will find aid and comfort on Fox News...GL with that...

by Rockville Liberal 2008-03-13 06:49AM | 0 recs
There are a few faux Democrats over there.

She'll fit right in, giving the DLC/AIPAC talking points to both her adoring supporters and the inch and a quarter brows. while drawing a nice paycheck.  After all, she's buddies with Murdoch, n'est pas?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-13 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Obama has also been on FOX.

by LadyEagle 2008-03-13 10:15AM | 0 recs
I knew for sure he
had fallen off edge when he frantically tried to spin the last SNL skit as damaging or demoralizing for Clinton.
It was all about what a moron Obama would be in the oval office and how Hillary had to bail him out and take his 3am calls.  It was funny and it was a slam on Obama, not Clinton.
I sat here watching him spin and spin and it finally occurred to me that he didn't know what else to do since he knew his target audience had seen it.  He was doing damage control for Obama.
Is he auditioning for Press secretary?
by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-03-13 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: I knew for sure he

That SNL skit could've been seen that way, but it wasn't intended that way. It was intended to show Clinton making stuff up and exagerating about her opponent to make herself look good. Don't believe me? Read this:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/new s/tv/la-et-snl13mar13,0,5294859.story

by dantes 2008-03-13 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: I knew for sure he

LOL - That's pathetic. Obama sitting in the White House crying because he doesn't know how to handle anything is an attack on clinton. Right.

Holy Mother of Sweet Potatos - this election is driving people right off the rails.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: I knew for sure he

It may have been meant to do that, but it definitely came off making Obama look like an idiot, because it emphasized his lack of readiness, while promoting Hillary's knowledge of everything.

The last 2 SNL's have definitely been very pro-Hillary.

by shalca 2008-03-13 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: I knew for sure he

You people are the only people clueless enough to think that 3am skit was making fun of Obama.

by Pravin 2008-03-13 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: I knew for sure he

Never mind that Lorne Michaels donated the maximum to the McCain campaign.

Look it up.

by doschi 2008-03-13 05:22PM | 0 recs
Keith was BRILLIANT

HE was practiaclly begging Hillary sto stop taking her campaign down the race baiting trail it blazed back in December with the race baiting comments of Bill Shaheen.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-13 06:44AM | 0 recs
nah

he was lame, partisan and stupid.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-03-13 06:52AM | 0 recs
Uh, Teresa

Olbermann was until last week a huge Hillary booster.  But the cumulative effect of her and her surrogates' slime was too much for him, as it should be for anyone who is a Democrat.  Hillary and her foul mouthpieces are doing damage to the party that will take years to heal.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-13 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Uh, Teresa

You keep saying he was a Hillary booster - which he NEVER was.  He was fairer. Not a hater - which I guess to some Obama people made him a booster

by NYMARJ 2008-03-13 09:17AM | 0 recs
It would seem that anyone

who wasn't an overt cheerleader for Hillary would fit your description, but the fact remains that he was quietly in favor of Clinton, while deeply skeptical regarding Obama.  Which he still is, by the way.  What he and we cannot tolerate is filth, which is the daily substance of the Clintons' continuing assault on the hearts and minds of the Democratic party.  Offering him the vice presidency (yeah right) while in second place with no mathematical way to win is some of the milder stuff, but it still stinks.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-13 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: It would seem that anyone

All these Hillaryites forget the extremely overly polite interview KO conducted with Hillary when she declared her candidacy.

by Pravin 2008-03-13 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith was BRILLIANT

Since when is talking about what someone wrote about their own life in their own autobiography racist? It may not be productive but how on earth is that racist?

Obama said he was doing drugs and that he might have wound up a junkie.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith was BRILLIANT

Was it crack or powder?

Did he deal?

by Walt Starr 2008-03-13 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith was BRILLIANT

So, you know of no way in which it's racist - that's my point. Nothing Shaheen said was inappropriate or racist. Maybe not politically smart but not racist.

And if you want to know whether it was crack or powder, read Obama's book. He's the one who talks about it.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith was BRILLIANT

You must be sleeping.  Bill Shaheen didn't say that in Dec.  Beside have you seen the memo leaked from the Obama camp in Dec with instruction on how to race bait comments the Clinton camp say.  It was on Huffington post I'll research and post it.

by bradydundee 2008-03-13 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith was BRILLIANT

Besides what Bill Shaheen said wasn't news it was in his book.  Why would you write about something like that and then expect everyone to over look it.  Doesn't sound like good judgment to me

by bradydundee 2008-03-13 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

MSNBC has been the most bias out of all of them.

What a disgrace!

by labanman 2008-03-13 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Keith and MSNBC have been wonderful truth tellers aside from the Shuster incident.

by Socks The Cat 2008-03-13 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

I don't watch Olbermann or BSNBC but last night I saw the video of this latest BS from the Grand Bloviator's mouth and was both appalled and amused by what he had to say. It was evident that he was putting on an act. He tried way too hard to come across as incensed and offended. It was like like watching a bad B movie.

I left BSNBC a long time ago and don't understand how anyone could watch the program. If they aren't in Obama's pocket something is amiss here. Because they are so completely and obviously pro-Obama that the fact can't be hidden anywhere.

I salute this fine diary. You state the obvious and in such a manner that it makes even dense people wonder why they have put up with this crap.

Just say no to BSNBC!

by Fleaflicker 2008-03-13 06:50AM | 0 recs
I'd have to disagree on one point

It's all about the money IMHO.  "Show me the money!"  Quite frankly, all the news stations are about the money!

And WHAT PARTY favors big money - all the time, every time?  The Repubs are sitting back and having a high old time watching the fights break out - the more they can stoke the fire, the better.

by Southern Mouth 2008-03-13 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

I stopped watching MSNBC back in December.  They like Obama will do anything to achieve their ends, and will burn and scorch any who stand in their way.

Obama will/is destroy/ing the DEM party.  His divisive campaign and Chicago-style politics will set back the Party for the next 20 years, as well as destroy the down-ticket races.

by TxDem08 2008-03-13 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Much the same could be said of Clinton. So, Obama is the devisive one that is destroying the Democratic Party by running against, and beating, Clinton? The minute that Obama says that McCain would make a better Commander-in-Chief than Clinton, I'll believe you. Until then, you should have your candidate look in a mirror.

by dantes 2008-03-13 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Clinton didn't say McCain would make a better Commander In Chief. That's dumbass, campaign rhetoric. She observed, correctly, that he would bring his lifetime of experience on foreign policy issues  to the campaign. she didn't endorse the lessons he learned. She pointed out, accurately, that he has an actual resume and that resume will resonate with a lot of people.

Obama has no resume and his big move on foreign policy presentation was a disaster that resulted in riots in Pakistan.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 07:39AM | 0 recs
Spin spin spin

the treason away.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-13 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Um...if Clinton had actually said what YOU wrote, that would've been fine.

First, she said this:

I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he'd bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.

She quite literally paired herself up with McCain in order to ridicule Obama. The staggering thing about this is that she could've made the EXACT SAME POINT by simply leaving McCain out altogether.

Not content to stop there, she went even one step further:

"I think that since we now know Sen. McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

"I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.

Seriously, how on earth can you say with a straight face that she didn't mean McCain would be a better CIC? Hell, he'd win by default according to her, because Obama hasn't even at that "threshold" yet.

You know, it's not "surrendering" to the pro-Obama folks to admit that Clinton misspoke, or used an unfortunate turn of phrase. It happens. But to change her words or pull out this elaborate explanation that wasn't there is intellectually dishonest.

Similarly, I'm utterly astonished at some of the comments supporting Ferraro I've read at MyDD. It's somehow a "known fact" that Obama got this far because of his race, and people are perfectly okay throwing that out there all matter-of-factly. This latent disdain for race is astonishing. If someone blind-posted it, we Democrats would swear it's from Red State.

And incidentally, I'm not saying Obama's supporters are angels, either--far from it. But in this particular situation, if you're pretending Hillary DIDN'T praise McCain over Obama, or that Ferraro DIDN'T say something unacceptable, than I just don't even know what to say anymore.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-13 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Oh yeah... and how is Obama going to destroy the down-ticket races? So far, all evidence says he has much larger coat-tails than Clinton. I believe her coat-tails only extend as far as the 5 states that really matter.

by dantes 2008-03-13 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Obama will hurt our candidates downticket?!?

Tell that to Congressman (and new superdelegate) Bill Foster who won in Dennis Hastert's old seat, the "forever red, now turning blue" IL-14 district.

You are entitled to your opinion, but most Dem candidates running do not share your view.

by power of truth 2008-03-13 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

The supposedly racially inflammatory "quotations" from the Obama camp cited by the diarist are really weak. Jesse Jackson Jr. spoke out of line and you haven't heard much from him lately. Even so, the comment was more about Hillary's tear-jerker routine than it was to racial issues.

The second quote, however, is pure hearsay. It's a third-person account, so who the hell knows if it's even true?

by dmc2 2008-03-13 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

KO is the Left's Bill O'Reilly.  Everyone cheered him and posted his SC's on youtube when he is eviscerating the right.  This time he bit the left, it happens.  As an Obama support, ardent at times, I felt it was over the line a hair.  It could have easily done without the David Duke reference and added hyperbole.  I think the feels a certain sense of exasperation, as do most Obama supporters, at the scorched earth policy HRC is running.  Having said that, I will continue to watch KO, but will hope that he tones it down a bit.

And you all laughed at Larry Craig Sock Puppet Theatre, don't lie...

by Rockville Liberal 2008-03-13 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

I still don't get what has made this guy so credible as a political commentator.  He comes from sports.. not that there is anything wrong with that I love football but people who spend their life studying sports may not be the best people to offer opinions about politics on national TV.

by JustJennifer 2008-03-13 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

All I can say is:

Write letters
letters
stacks and stacks of letters
LETTERS!

Write BOTH of these email addresses so that not only does Keith see it, but the editor sees it, since Keith will likely delete your letter and pretend it doesn't exist:

letters@msnbc.com
KOlbermann@msnbc.com

by Sensible 2008-03-13 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

I already did, thanking him for his contributions.

by a gunslinger 2008-03-13 07:06AM | 0 recs
As did any right-thinking

person.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-13 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

THAT KO email is no longer working for me.

I've been sending emails since last night.
That one keeps coming back, sadly.

I'd RATHER see him in person so I can SLAP HIM SILLY!

what a PUNK he's turning into!
ACK!  That WHOLE Odrama misty-eyed delusion foaming from MSNBC and Matthews LEG, just makes me SICK to my stomach. The lemmings that I used to think were ONLY on the far far right.

NO one is willing to admit their "precious" is deeply flawed!  The Repugs must be laughing hysterically!!!  And NOW this BIGOT of a PREACHER  is being exposed.  What do you want to BET the lemmings will make some excuse for 20 yrs of Odrama's following and praying at the side of this bigot!

GREAT!   NOT!
http://http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPj Vp3PLnVs

:-(((

by CarolinaDawn 2008-03-13 08:20AM | 0 recs
Troll alert.

If anyone in this looney bin cares any more.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-13 08:50AM | 0 recs
I sent following to MSNBC

You can email them at letters@msnbc.com

Keith Olbermann, who had been a progressive hero to me, has lately been overstepping the bounds of civility and seems to have gone batshit insane.

Maybe in the interest of journalistic integrity he should add the disclaimer that he is a regular poster at the virulently anti-Clinton hate site Daily Kos.

At the very least, out of his alledged respect for Edward R. Murrow, he should change his sign off from "Good Night and Good Luck" to "Fired Up!  Ready to Go!"

I have been unable to listen to his past several "Specious Comments" and have no idea anymore if I even agree with them, but tonight I made a "Special Effort" to listen to him trying to couch his Hillary Hatred and sexist, race bating rant in distortions, out of context quotes and outright lies.

I am a John Edwards Democrat and not a supporter of Sen. Clinton, but MSNBC owes Hillary Clinton equal time.

Absolutely disgusting.

by sgary 2008-03-13 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Please send this to MSNBC.  They need to hear from us.  Also, send to Buzzflash.com who has heralded his words and has headlines that daily atttack Clinton.

by ddigioia 2008-03-13 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

hen Morning Joe feels uncomfortable with one of the candidates being mentioned in the same speech with David Duke and he is considered a great American we are all off the deep end.

Each side has consistently gamed the system. So no sides has clean hands. Both sides have been race-baiting, and both sides have been looking for gotcha moments.

Geraldine Ferarro's statement was made during a paid speech right after the Potomac primaries. It was not picked up until now. Could she have said it in a more politically correct way. Absolutely. But does that merit the firestorm that it has received? Absolutely not. This is in the same category of the personal "monster" statement by Ms. Powers. Should she have been asked to resign? Absolutely not!

The media is playing its role to amplify the circus, amd it has become a circus, if not a freak show. Sen. Clinton was asked a question on 60 minutes and the whole think was taken out of context.

I guess we can expect the farce to continue to the convention. It has gotten to a place where whoever wins the nomination, John McCain will more than likely to win the presidency. The Reagan Democrats and older women will vote for him if Hillary doesn't win. The young people and the upperclass liberals may just not vote.

When this campaign started 80% of both Obama and Clinton supporters  were more than happy to vote for whichever candidate was selected, now 44% of Clinton's and 51% of Obama's people are saying in polls, no way will I vote for he other candidate.

The Clinton folks are pushing for the votes in FL and MI to remain as is, the Obama folks would prefer not to acknowledge them. Because a worse nightmare would ensue. One would have the most pledged delegates and the other may have the popular vote. What a train wreck! The super-delegates are not bound by anything to pick anyone. Those are the rules and each of them will have a good argument if this is how it shakes out.
Especially since they are still even in the current no account polls with McCain.

If this lady and gentleman can't keep a lid on it maybe the super-delegates should exercise some chutzpah and select the grown-up - John Edwards and Joe Biden, and I would vote for that. But, such are the things dreams are made of.

by LadyEagle 2008-03-13 07:39AM | 0 recs
MSNBC fired Phil Donaghue

their highest rated show, in the ramp up to the war, because they didn't want to be stuck with the anti-war guy while all the other networks were "waving the flag".

The want so desparately to own the zeitgeist, that they get themselves way over the line time and time again.

I think what's going on is that they are subsidizing Obama's campaign and hoping to serve for a Democratic WH as Fox does for a GOP White House. It's the only thing I can figure out. And then maybe, just maybe, they'll keep those viewers for a lifetime.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 07:48AM | 0 recs
The big orange blog

Keith Olbermann(and pretty much the rest of MSNBC), and Barack Obama are all pretty much in the same category for me. I'm disgusted with all of them right now.

by georgiapeach 2008-03-13 08:02AM | 0 recs
(Comment Deleted)

This comment has been deleted by an administrator.

by nkpolitics 2008-03-13 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Troll-Rated For Offensive Hate Speech

nkpolitics:

You should be banned from this site for this comment.

by Tennessean 2008-03-13 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Troll-Rated For Offensive Hate Speech

wow, I've never seen a comment actually get deleted by the admins. Now that's an impressive feat of trollery.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-13 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Troll-Rated For Offensive Hate Speech

Wow.  Someone care to paraphrase without going over the top?

:eats popcorn:

by doschi 2008-03-13 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Troll-Rated For Offensive Hate Speech

Never mind.  Scroll down.

:facepalm:

When it gets to that level, it's time for us to chill out and realize WE ARE ALL DEMOCRAT'S HERE (except for the trolls).

I'll vigorously fight for my candidate, but in the end, I'm voting Dem no matter who's at the top of the ticket.

I'm not saying we all need to sing Kum-ba-ya, but throwing around n-bomb's and f-bomb's (and I don't mean f*ck) is unacceptable.

by doschi 2008-03-13 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Olbermann is a joke. He tries way too hard, like some awkward guy trying to obsessively woo some gal by learning every word in the dictionary and insisting on using every word he can cram into his mouth. He has become a parody of himself, like some too large, too ungainly giant impersonator impersonating himself. There is an obsessively Frankenstein-ish slightly out of control quality about him. You almost expect to see the neck bolt coming loose, when he is on one of his fire and brimstone emo jags. How can anyone take this man with the intellectual sensitivity of a cartoon character seriously? Only in America. Between Matthews and Olbermann, the inmates are in charge of the MSNBC nut house. Watching that cable channel is like watching One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest on extended play. So much for Obama's judgment that he seems willing to make these people part of his extended campaign team.

by superetendar 2008-03-13 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Frankly, Olbermann's commentary was spot-on.  He pointed out the damage that Sen. Clinton has suffered - and continues to suffer - by not keeping her surrogates in line and on message.

This is political campaigning 101, and Sen. Clinton is taking a decidedly Rove-inspired tack by playing dodgeball with regard to surrogates like Ferraro, Penn and Bill.  It's sad to see a person who is so smart be so desperate to find something to stick against her opponent.

In short: the Clinton campaign is still in a tailspin, still trying every angle to try and eke out victories that are far from dominant.

So kudos to Keith Olbermann for calling out the white elephant in the room in a way that doesn't destroy the Clinton campaign - or his own integrity - but plainly shows how poorly the campaign has dealt with its own message and messengers.

Just my $0.02 - YMMV.

by DCFD Rudi 2008-03-13 08:36AM | 0 recs
KO failed at advocacy-journalism

...and at the the cornerstone of liberalism: intellectual consistency.

As those of us who have studied media critics like Eric Alterman know, advocacy journalism is essential, but must meet honest standards of ideological consistency.

KO fell off the tracks when he stopped being a liberal critic, and started being a campaign flack. If he were honest, he would quit his position as anchor of Countdown, and become a partisan analyst/advocate like James Carville.

Congrats, Keith, you have sunk lower than that which you despise.

by Pacific John 2008-03-13 08:38AM | 0 recs
Thanks for posting here, dhonig!

I was over at Daily Obama and saw the horrible grief you were taking - I tried to add my support for you, but I've probably been banned for my effort.

Great diary.  

by Shazone 2008-03-13 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

How about the fact that Ferraro was right?

Black people would not be voting 91% for Obama if he wasn't black. And whats wrong with that, AAs want to take the opportunity to elect a black President. I don't have a problem with that, many women want to see the first woman President. Thats fine too.

Does anyone really believe that Obama would be getting 91% of the black vote if he was a white man?

But the Obama campaign smears anyone as a racist who points this out, and they don't care how much damage they do to the Democratic Party in the process.

Its not racist to say that Obama being black is helping him. Bill Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro, Hillary Clinton.... Racists??? Come on, get real.

by liberalj 2008-03-13 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

What percentage of the black vote did John Kerry, Al Gore and Bill Clinton get? How did Al Sharpton and Carol Mosely Braun do in MS?

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-13 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

There's a big difference here between Obama getting 90% of the black vote in a primary where there are hardly any major policy differences between the 2 candidates and his opponent has long standing support in the black community and John Kerry getting 90% of the black vote against George Bush. There's huge policy differences there and a huge difference in their approach to the black community.

Al Sharpton and Mosely Braun were never that viable, Obama is viable. And i think Jesse Jackson is a more valid comparison, Obama has just managed to add a sizable minority of whites and latinos to his voting coalition. Thats why he's done much better.

Anyone who thinks Obama's 90% support amongst AAs isn't because he's black is delusional.

by liberalj 2008-03-13 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

What were the racial breakdowns in: Colorado, Washington, WIsconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, North Dakota, Maine and Iowa?

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-13 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Name one state where the black vote has even been close. Just one state.

Those are are all caucus states (except for Wisconsin) for a start so low participation and not as representative as primary states, and i'm not sure how using overwhelming white states disproves my point about Obama's 90% black support.

Im not disputing that Obama has won the white vote in some states. That would be ridiculous.

by liberalj 2008-03-13 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Im not disputing that Obama has won the white vote in some states. That would be ridiculous.

Yes. It would. And it was. When that bitter old fool Ferraro started saying it, and wouldn't stop saying, and announced her intention to keep saying it.

Hillary Clinton may well be the victim in this case. But she is a victim of Geraldine Ferraro. And Mark Penn. And Howard Wolfson. And Maggie Williams. No one has done as much damage to Clinton and her campaign as her top supporters.

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-13 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

You only get to say 'and it was' if i actually said that Obama hadn't won the white vote anywhere, since i didn't you don't.

A lifetime of fighting for civil rights is ignored if you dare point out that Obama is benefiting from being black. She's not saying Obama shouldn't be President because he's black. She's not saying the only reason he's where he is is because he's black. She's pointing out that like her in 1984, he benefits from identity politics.

The Obama campaign is happy to see anyone labelled as racist who dares oppose Obama, no matter who they are or what they've done for civil rights.

Its easy to label someone as racist, especially when you're trying to shore up black support.

by liberalj 2008-03-13 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

She's not saying the only reason he's where he is is because he's black.

Actually, that's exactly what she said.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Geraldine Ferraro has a record of a "lifetime of fighting for civil rights"?

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-13 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Yeah, and so do Bill and Hillary Clinton.

If you put it in the context of the whole quote and the question, which i know gets in the way of a good outrage party you can see she says he's run a great campaign but that he wouldn't of come this far if he wasn't black.

Bill Clinton benefited from being a southern Democrat, Hillary wouldn't of come this far without being a woman. She admitts she wouldn't of been VP nominee if she wasn't a woman.

by liberalj 2008-03-13 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

I'm not disputing Bill and Hillary Clinton's record. I'm disputing Geraldine Ferraro's. She was specifically picked as Mondale's Veep 'cause she wasn't one of those trouble-making women.

She was the Speaker's kind of gal, much to the dismay of more senior Democratic congresswomen like Lindy Boggs and Pat Schroeder. "I don't think he understood me, and I clearly didn't understand him," said Schroeder, who was once asked by O'Neill why she, and not her husband, had run for Congress. The Speaker was "appalled" when Schroeder brought her small children to the floor. "It was the planet of the guys around here," she said.
Ferraro, on the other hand, wasn't "a threat," said Tony Coelho. "She is not a feminist with wounds."...

http://time-blog.com/swampland/index.htm l?page=2

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-13 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

There aren't very blacks who are supporting Barack "just because he's black." Just consider the 2004 South Carolina primary. Al Sharpton is a very well known and higly visible advocate for black issues. He has been doing this for decades. He was also articulating a progressive agenda more responsible to black issues and concerns than any other candidate. He got 17% of the black vote, as against 34% for Kerry and 37% for Edwards. So, at most 17% of Obama's black support might be said to be based on his race.

I would suggest that it's even lower, however, due to the fact that Al Sharpton was not only black, but also had a significant record of advocacy on black issues behind him. If he had been just black, with no record, I suspect that he would have gotten less than 17%.

If you add it up, the number of blacks who would back ANY black candidate against ANY candidate of another race, i.e. are voting for Obama "just because he's black" is probably somewhere between 5-10% of the black vote. 90-95% of blacks are going to take a look at the candidate's record, biography, achievements, platform and rhetoric and make their decision based on that.

In this case, the reason for Obama's black support to me is quite apparent: his message. There isn't any group in America more desperate for "hope" and "change we can believe in" than African-Americans, and Obama is credible in delivering that message because of his qualifications and his record.

by dmc2 2008-03-13 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite


Why is his message appealing to 90% of AAs??? There's no major policy difference with Hillary except for UHC, where her policy would probably be better for AAs. What is it about Obama apart from his race that means 90% of AAs want to support him? The idea that 90-95% of blacks have looked at Obama's record and decided to support him and ignored his race is just absurd. If race is nothing to do with it, why aren't 90-95% of whites and latinos making the same choice? Let me guess, racism? Thats the only reason for not supporting Obama isn't it.

Why are black supers being threatened for not supporting the black candidate?

Why not just accept it, there's nothing wrong with AAs supporting Obama because he's black. Hell, if i was black i'd be doing the same.

by liberalj 2008-03-13 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

The commentator is showing you, with the use of other presidential races that black people don't just vote for the black candidate.

Why I think they've gone in such great numbers to Obama, are slights they feel they have suffered from the Clinton campaign, such as the LBJ/MLK statement (regardless of its truthfulness), the Jesse Jackson statement, and now the Geraldine Ferraro statement.  The fact that Obama is black is just icing.

by shalca 2008-03-13 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

The Obama campaign masterfully used completely harmless, non-racist remarks and used them to turn blacks to Obama.

LBJ passed the legislation that MLK fought for, historical fact.

There has been no difference between Hillary's voting record and Obama's record on Iraq. Historical fact. How can these two historical facts be racist?

Well they're racist if you want them to be.

Thats why everytime i see Obama preaching about 'new politics', it makes me sick. Obama is right on the issues, he's a Democrat and he's a lot better than McCain so i'll support him in November.

If you think Obama's getting 90% support and his colour is just 'icing' i'm afraid you are living in a dream world. He's getting 90% support because he's black.

by liberalj 2008-03-13 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

So 90% of black people choose their candidate based on color?

by shalca 2008-03-13 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

I didn't say policy, I said message. Barack has a message of hope and change. Hillary has a message of experience and competence. I would submit to you that the vast majority of black people are far more interested in hope and change than experience and competence, all else being equal. Why? Because there's quite a bit of despair in black communities, and we're desperate for a change in the status quo.

It's the same reason that blacks vote 90% for Dems against Republicans in almost every single election, even if both candidates are white. Dems stand for change, Republicans for the status quo (or worse). If this election had come down to John Edwards v. Joe Lieberman, I bet the numbers would be nearly the same.

by dmc2 2008-03-13 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

You guys can keep on dreaming that Obama gets 90% of the black vote because of his message, the rest of us can live in the real world where he gets 90% of the black vote because of his color.

by liberalj 2008-03-13 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

But I'm sure that you've never said the same thing when blacks deliver 90% of their votes to a Kerry, or a Gore, or a Bill Clinton.

by dmc2 2008-03-13 10:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

There's a huge difference in the platforms of Bush and Kerry/Gore/Clinton. There's a history of Republican racism and indifference to poverty, there's the fact that there are hardly any AAs in the Republican Party. So there are real reasons why 90% of AAs might vote for Gore/Kerry/Clinton and it isn't color.

Now we have 2 candidates, one of whom has a long history of supporting civil rights and has the backing of many leading AA politicians. She has the same positions on virtually every issue. But yet Obama gets 90% of the black vote.

Black women have gone heavily for Obama whilst white, asian and latino women have gone for Clinton. Downscale blacks have gone heavily for Obama when downscale whites, asians and latinos have, in most states, gone solidly for Clinton.

In no state has the black vote even been close, so you're saying that there is something about Obama's message that is uniquely appealing to every demographic within the black vote that 90% support it. I think that is completely ridiculous.  

I'm not saying its a bad thing that AAs are voting for Obama because he's black, i'm sure its not the only reason but its the reason its near unanimous.

The main reason Hillary's support amongst women is so much higher is because she's a woman. Its not like i'm trying to belittle Obama and say Hillary's support is all earned and Obama's is just because of his color.

by liberalj 2008-03-14 04:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

"There's a history of Republican racism and indifference to poverty, there's the fact that there are hardly any AAs in the Republican Party. So there are real reasons why 90% of AAs might vote for Gore/Kerry/Clinton and it isn't color."

I dunno, if Hillary is running on Bill's record she has to account for Three Strikes, for Welfare Reform, for Rwanda, for Haiti, for Lani Guinier, Jocelyn Elders, Sista Souljah. If she's not running on his record, then she has not much at all next to Obama's community organizing on the South Side of Chicago, civil rights lawyering, passing legislation on racial profiling, death penalty reform, etc.

What exactly have either Bill or Hillary Clinton ever done for black people? The best thing that I can think of would be "mend it, don't end it," which was not exactly the most spirited defense of affirmative action ever, but it at least held off the dogs for a little while.

Citing AA political leaders doesn't mean much, because they have mostly endorsed out of personal loyalty and desire for clout with the "inevitable" nominee.

by dmc2 2008-03-14 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

I remember when it was not to long ago that everybody kept asking "Is Obama Black Enough?" and was considered to be too much of an intellectual policy wonk in his early speeches.

Now he's only getting elected because he's black and has no substance when it comes to policy.

Hill-arious.

by doschi 2008-03-13 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Clarification.  Geraldine Ferraro did not say that Obama is getting the black vote, or that Obama is where he is because he's getting the black vote. The former is true, the latter is false, given the demographics of the party.  What she said was that he's only in the position that he is because he's black.  That's a very very different statement.

by shalca 2008-03-13 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Goo point. I wanted to believe that is what Ferraro meant but she never clarified in subsequent interviews, so at that point I gave her less benefit of a doubt.

by Gary Kilbride 2008-03-13 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Good, not goo.

by Gary Kilbride 2008-03-13 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Excellent point by liberalj. Since Ferraro's comments it's been incredible so many Democrats and analysts have ignored how true they are from a political sense. Blacks have demonstrated a tendency to vote in surreal percentage for a specific party or candidate. That dates decades and beyond, to the period blacks supported Republicans.

Obama is the beneficiary now, and as liberalj points out, there's nothing wrong with that. But it's supreme idiocy to pretend it would have evolved in similar fashion if Obama were every bit as talented, but white or Hispanic, or whatever. Those blocks do not vote in extreme percentage. The Jewish vote can manage into the 80s in certain states, but that's the only example I can think of that approximates African American voting allegiance.

Obviously this is a slippery topic. I'm merely pointing out numerical truths, and I've posted regarding political numbers for years on various sites, but whenever you edge into black-related analysis there is a tunnel vision group who seize  opportunity to assert racism. I remember appearing on a Las Vegas radio sports talk show about 15 years ago as a guest analyst and commenting how dramatically the NFL had changed, providing specific percentage of blacks at certain positions, namely cornerback, compared to previous eras. After the show many people approached me saying how interesting it was, that they hadn't heard the specific numbers in the mainstream media, while two people stuck their fingers in my face claiming racism.

Winning 90+% of a block is such trump card dominance I'm always amazed we don't prioritize black registration more heavily. Consider a 60-40 or 65-35 block like Hispanics. At 60-40, Democrats require 400 votes to net +80. That's the same margin earned among 100 black votes. Any candidate who wins 90% of blacks has amazing shove toward the nomination, so it can be safely argued that right now and foreseeable the ideal candidate to win a Democratic nationwide primary process is an overwhelmingly popular black man. That should have been obvious all along but it was never mentioned because there simply hasn't been an example.

When I followed the Missouri primary it was bizarre, since it followed suit like a D vs. R race. Hillary took command early and posted big margins in the rural counties, winning virtually every one. But I knew Kansas City and St. Louis always report last, and no doubt they would avalanche toward Obama. Sure enough, they barely put him over the top. But here's the question: Would you rather have the candidate who demonstrated more strength throughout the state, and assume she will still be able to dominate the black vote when it finalizes to the typical D/R scenario, or take a chance on semi-blowouts in one area after another, then somehow overcome it in urban strongholds? IMO, the best option would have been a pre-primary Hillary, before the racial controversies. I still doubt she would lose meaningful percentage of the black vote, once it was an either-or vs. McCain. The posters on various sites who insist blacks wouldn't support Hillary are every bit as now-oriented and off base as the analysts who doubted Obama would eventually control the black vote in the primaries.

Regarding Olbermann, I'm continually amused at his obsession with the SNL skits, which clearly annoy him. Nothing verifies his hypocritical nature more than his reaction to the SNL skits. When Hillary pounced on the first one, Olbermann desperately denounced it, saying in bug-eyed form a la Marty Feldman, "Maybe they were trying to be funny." Then mere weeks later he suddenly embraced SNL when he detected a skit denouncing Hillary.

Olbermann has no idea what a flimsy parody he has become. When I finally return to Las Vegas I owe an apology to two of my right wing friends. They told me I agreed with Olbermann's positions so I was conveniently overlooking how pompous and unfair he was at base instinct.

by Gary Kilbride 2008-03-13 10:48AM | 0 recs
Andrew Sullivan says it's Obama's FACE that is

important!  So, it IS about appearance, right?? So, it is about race, right??

How about a woman being the "face" of America to the world?  Hillary was a great inspiration to women when she was in the WH as First Lady...and will be even moreso if she is President?  Why are WOMEN as a sex supposed to defer to a male, who happens to be black??  Esp. one who has done SQUAT except ignore freezing tenants in his benefactor's slum buildings??  One who plays the race card when in SC and MS by talking in code against whites?  Why does that make him such a great FACE to present to the world...or America, for that matter??

by Gloria 2008-03-13 03:26PM | 0 recs
What does Olberman think of Obama's Pastor?
There's news from ABC of a harsh denunciation of America by Obama's pastor of 20 years. This is the guy who baptized Obama's children. He's the guy who gave a title to Obama's one book. [Click here for more....]
by zenful6219 2008-03-13 09:50AM | 0 recs
Olbermann is the new O'Reilly
In fact, between Olbermann and Campell (dominatrix) Brown on CNN, I end up on Fox.  After about 20 seconds, I just turn off the tube till Letterman.
Unfortunate that there is no sane cable news show.
by internetstar 2008-03-13 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: proof that KO is one big giant Hypocrite

Keith olbermann is one big giant Hypocrite!

he has no preference on any candidates then, but when Obama election results don't look good,
Hillary should be trashed by KO night after night. Below is what he wrote :

.....................................

I Hate To Interrupt, But...
by Keith Olbermann
Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:17:12 AM PDT
[This is legit -- kos]

But, having now read a (mercifully few) claims here that I'm a) attacking Clinton, b) burying Edwards, and c) clobbering Obama,
 I feel the need to mention that I truly don't have a preference. I am tilting in no direction, sending out no subliminal message,
 and thwarting no truth..............

[Note: Yep, it's really Keith. SusanG]
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/14/ 12636/5764/715/436605

........................................ ..

do as i say, not as i do.
;o(

by toddy 2008-03-13 10:18AM | 0 recs
Jerome Armstrong is a douchebag

He is a FAGGOT Douchebag who deserves a beat down- He is a Coward who hides behind his blog.
He should die and burn in Hell.
He ought to be Sodomized by
Arianna Huffingtons ex Husband.

Jerome Armstrong likes MY DING DONG.

by nkpolitics 2008-03-13 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome Armstrong is a douchebag

Jerome Armstrong Worse
Jonathan Singer  Worser
Todd Beanton  Worst

Tonights Worlds Worst Person of the World.

by nkpolitics 2008-03-13 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Keith Olbermann is an example of how people belittle themselves. He thinks we Americans (or wait may be we Obama supporters) have so less IQ that we wont see thru the hypocrisy.

Well if you want to know what Obama campaign is thinking, go to Keith Olbermann. He licks Kos and Axelrod's shoes to get the talking points out.

I wonder how he lives after submitting himself to another person.

by Sandeep 2008-03-13 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite
The morning I saw Jesse Jackson Jr. race bait with the comment about Hillary's tears was the exact moment I lost respect for the Obama campaign. That the news media let it slide and there was no outright rejection told me what I needed to know.
I'll still vote for him in the GE because I'm a progressive, not a populist like so many of the latte' flavored Koolaid drinkers I read on the lefty blogs who'll vote Mccain if the Messiah doen't win the nomination.
See, I know Hillary is a knife fighter and a scrapper. It's why I support her, even though she has angered me in the past.
I want my commander in chief to reach across the aisle with a shank up her sleeve.
You want to reason with people who think the earth is 7000 years old?
by Zorkon 2008-03-13 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Keith was spot on. Hillary is running as if Obama were the Democrat and she were the Republican.

The hyperbolic panty-wringing hysterics of many MyDD contributors over Olbermann amuses me to no end.

by carbocation 2008-03-13 10:53AM | 0 recs
Seriously

Olbermann's their opponent, and Rush Limbaugh is their ally.  

by bosdcla14 2008-03-13 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Keith Olbermann has jumped the shark. I've seen his show a couple time in the last couple weeks (bit and pieces that is, his show to me has never been interesting enough to sit the whole way through) and his pro Obama bias is so obvious it's embarassing. Tim Russert and Chris Matthews even do a better job at disgusing their anti Hillary bias as real journalism. Olbermann certainly seems to want people know he supports Obama, and will do everything in his power to help the Obama camapaign. Him saying he is not is endorsing Obama is a laughable as Bill O'Reilly's claim that he's and independent.

I'm done with MSNBC (wrote an email to them telling them as much) and I hope Clinton supporters, and thinking Democrats in general, can start a boycott on the network. The only cable news outlet I can stand is CNN, who has their flaws, but is far preferable to the other two.

by Christopher Lib 2008-03-13 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Wow.  Everyone on this blog is insane and many are racist.  I'm done.

by ramfar 2008-03-13 11:00AM | 0 recs
Yes, MyDD is code for KKK

by internetstar 2008-03-13 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Keith Olbermann has been in anti-Clinton mode since Super Tuesday. He doesn't even try to hide it. His roster of guests include only Obamaphiles or Clinton haters (Jonathan Alter, Howard Fineman, Eugene Robinson, Rachel Maddow, Dana Milbank, Richard Wolffe). They all maintain they are neutral (a la Donna Brazille), yet fool nobody. The only pro-Clinton guest he has had on his show is Craig Crawford who has not been seen for over a month. Coincidence? I think not.

dhonig is right on, and those who do not see it are the same people who still believe that Ed Schultz and Randi Rhodes are neutral. Dumb and dumber!

by STUBALL 2008-03-13 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

By the way Glenn Miller Played.
Songs that make a hit Parade.
Guys like us we had it Made.
Those Were the days.
Didn't need no Welfare State.
Everybody holds its weight.
GRO A Sol Was Great
Those Were the Days.

When Strom Thurmond ran for President in 1948. We supported him and had rest of the country followed our lead we would not be having these problems like we are having right now.

I wish JESSE HELMS were still in the Senate.

by nkpolitics 2008-03-13 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

MSNBC

Madrass Sucking News Barack Corporation

by nkpolitics 2008-03-13 11:12AM | 0 recs
Less blood please

I think we should reconsider attacking one of the only fair and brave journalists we have just because he sided with a different candidate.

For the sake of the progressive agenda I think we really need to take a little of the emotion out of this race as it is.

Come on folks, he's one of the good guys and he was calling it like he sees it.

by luckymortal 2008-03-13 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

I have lost a lot of respect for Keith Olbermann due to his biased reporting this primary season.  I still think he is a good reporter in general, but I can't believe how anti-Clinton he is.

by mikes101 2008-03-13 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

unfair to blame the Obama campaign for the advert you link to on Politico.  It was produced by a labor group independently.

by power of truth 2008-03-13 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Funny, nobody has trouble linking Clinton to Andrew Cuomo or Bob Kerrey, even though neither works for the campaign.  

by dhonig 2008-03-13 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

I do not condone it, but maybe you do?

dhonig, hypocrite?

by power of truth 2008-03-13 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

I have lost all respect for Olbermann. But he is not alone in his total bias for Obama and against Clinton.

Randi Rhodes and Rachel Maddow of Air America along with Ed Shultz are Obama tools who make no attempt to be even-handed.

I refuse to listen to or watch shows that are Obama tools. Even if Obama wins the nomination, I will not tune in to any of the above mentioned people.

by mmorang 2008-03-13 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Fox news is the place for you.

Since truth doesn't matter to you.

Hillary is finished!

But she may be able to destroy the Dem Party as she goes down, and you will root for her all the way.

Good riddance...

by Silence Do Good 2008-03-13 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

The MSM anointed Hillary the Democrat nominee for months when the race began.  Edwards couldn't get any media attention.  Hillary was getting most of the black vote in polls, at least 80% because Bill Clinton was the "first black president."  Obama was a nobody but he was interesting to the MSM.  No one made comments about how lucky Obama is.  Remember those days when blacks thought he wasn't black enough, not as black as Bill and Hillary?  Most of the MSM except Tucker, who has always hated her,  fawned over her and sang her praises.

Hillary and her surrogates have upped the ante.  IMHO Obama has been firm about Hillary's positions; he has not said she is incapable of being president.  I think she's the lucky one.  She is married to a former president, she was well-known before the race started, and she has a respectful opponent.  Almost no one has said she should get out of the race because she has only won 33% of the races.  She is behind 800,000 votes now.  That's quite a few votes.  She is lucky that she continues to get a lot of press, prompted now because she and her surrogates make ridiculous comments about Barack, many of them full of disrespect and denigration.

Keith did her a favor last night.  Sounds like her supporters won't face reality.

by cando 2008-03-13 06:09PM | 0 recs
Keith Olbermann Hero

Keith is a hero for telling Hillary where to get off.

She needs to quit this race today, SHE HAS LOST!

She will now try to steal the election...

Sounds sort of like    Bush.

by Silence Do Good 2008-03-13 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

you guys are beyond stupid here. Ferraro didn't say "black people support Obama" what she said was is he wouldn't be successful if he was white. Don't you get it? There's a lifetime of difference there. She was basically putting down his talent and hard work to get where he is today, to basically say he's some kind of affirmative action candidate. Bullshit. He's earned his spot, not sure about Ferraro. She was APPOINTED to her VP spot.

And how does it feel to be on the same side as Pat "Xenophobe" Bucchanon.

Madness.

by washingtoncritic 2008-03-13 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: how does he earn

his spot if people are voting for him "because he's black?" (Iwas told this by a client and have heard others say it as well)
  That's not an earned vote...that's a race vote pure and simple. Ferraro was right in that if this guy was white or a woman of any color or gay -and had such a "vast" political resume as he does-there's no way in hell he would be where he is.

BY the way here's another way to think about this-what if he does get in and can't get things done, can't make a decision(like the Mi. re-vote) or say something else more drastic like whether to use force somewhere-and he stalls waiting for it to work itself out...do you honestly think the media is going to continue to blow smoke up his ass then?
 You know damn well just how fickle the media is-but let me ask you this-if he screws up (which I have no doubt at some point he will due to his lack of experience with having to handle big problems ) do you honestly think that this country is ever going to trust another black in that house again? If you're going to put someone in there make damn sure you put the right one in there-i personally like Harold Ford Jr. a little to the right of center for me -but he has a congressional track record and went to bat for Murtha across the House floor-google him or go wikipedia-he'd be terrific-I would trust him to go to bat for me-i trust obama to go to bat for himself only. sorry but true.

namaste.

by artsyker 2008-03-14 02:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite
Will any of Obama's staunchest and most knowledgeable supporters please publicly refute and denounce Jesse Jackson Jr.'s
remarks about "Hillary's Tears"?
I just didn't see enough distance created between the Obama campaign and that remark. It seemed they rode it into South Carolina quite willingly. That's where they lost me. I was quite happy to see either candidate win the nomination before that moment.
He quite clearly said that she would cry out of self pity and vanity, but not for black people.
If you try to spin his words any other way, you are a Koolaid drinker,or a liar, or unable to critically think. Kumbaaya and a guitar to you.
by Zorkon 2008-03-13 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

this is all your candidate's fault. She's the one who went around demanding that everybody resign and be denounced and rejected.

Who the fuck cares? Even Geraldine Ferraro - a racist piece of shit to be sure - I could care less. But it was tit for tat. Hillary took down Samantha Powers, so what went around came around.

Before you know it, there wont be any staff left.

by washingtoncritic 2008-03-13 02:14PM | 0 recs
The fact that Keith Olbermann

was ever mentioned in the same breath as Edward R. Murrow is a testament to how low the media has sunk.

by JimR 2008-03-13 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

This is a diary that is all-too-typical of those posted by HRC partisans here at MyDD and by Obama partisans over at DailyKos.  "So-and-so criticized MY candidate, so s/he must be a lying, hypocritcal sack of sh*t and I will NEVER watch him/her again and anybody who does henceforth must be either a hopeless retard or another lying, hypocritical sack of sh*t."  This sort of diary conveys no new, useful information and, frankly, is a waste of bandwidth.  Get over it and grow up.

So, because Olbermann criticizes HRC and the conduct of her campaign, he's a liar and a hypocrite because he didn't first identify himself as an Obama supporter?  Does this mean only Obama supporters criticize HRC and the way her campaign gets run, legitimately or otherwise?  I don't think so.  Do you have any evidence of Olbermann going out of his way to criticize HRC or her campaign before their recent decision to "go negative" against Obama?  Absent that, your conclusion that Olbermann made his critical Special Comment not because he honestly and reasonably believed it to be true and justified, but rather because he is a lying, hypocritical closet Obama partisan, is nothing but simple question-begging.

Moreover, people like Olbermann have a limited amount of air time and literally can't report every bit of campaign misconduct that occurs in every campaign.  It's easy to find questionable conduct by campaign partisans for any campaign that hasn't been reported upon or criticized by Olbermann -- but doing so proves Olbermann neither a liar nor a hypocrite because he has chosen to criticize instances of campaign misconduct committed by another campaign.  At most, it shows only his view on the relative severity of the misconduct.

Assuming Olbermann knows about Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s comments, it proves at most that Olbermann doesn't consider them as self-centered, unwarranted, outrageous or as damaging to the prospects for Democrats winning the White House this Fall as the HRC campaign's recent ham-handed, awkward attempts to "mess up" Obama by, among other things, appealing to a sense of resentment among whites voters by implying that Obama is an "affirmative action candidate" unqualified to be Commander-in-Chief, unlike HRC or even John McCain.  It's like the guy stopped for going 90 in a 55 mph zone bitching to the cop because all the folks going 70 weren't also stopped.  Priorities count in allocating scarce resources.  Obviously, HRC partisans see it otherwise, but Olbermann's conclusion that the HRC campaign's recent conduct is like the guy going 90 in the 55 zone is certainly a defensible position and hardly warrants the venom you spit at him.  

I'm getting really weary of reading diaries like this one that immediately question the motives and honesty of those who criticize the diarist's candidate with no evidence of bias, malice or dishonesty beyond the criticism itself.  It's just useless name-calling and conveys no information beyond the diarist's blind partisanship.

by knutsondc 2008-03-13 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

And many are weary of long winded sophist smokescreens like above.

by Zorkon 2008-03-13 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

My, what a cogent rebuttal.... Can't be bothered to pony up any facts or GASP a reasoned argument in support of your claim that my prior post was "a sophist smokescreen?"  Smokescreen for what?  My "lying and hypocritical" partisanship for Obama?  That would be you jumping to unwarranted, undocumented conclusions, just like the diarist did about Olbermann.

Next time should I avoid explaining my position and just engage in one-line name-calling like you so you won't consider your attention span challenged and me "long winded?"  So much for respectful, reasoned discussion.

by knutsondc 2008-03-13 03:51PM | 0 recs
I've watched him three times

That's all it took.  And that was years ago.

Progressive don't need a progressive version of O'Reilly.

It demeans the cause.

You hurt America, Keith.

by Edgar08 2008-03-13 03:23PM | 0 recs
What's with MSNBC?

Can anyone explain where the animus from MSNBC comes from? Tim Russert, Keith O., and Chris Matthews are all drinking the kool-aid.

www.HillBuzz.blogspot.com

by www HillBuzz blogspot com 2008-03-13 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

I'm recommending your diary, but I disagree with the statement that "our complaint is not so much with what Geraldine Ferraro said, for everybody agrees that was profoundly stupid and offensive."  I think Obama, Olbermann, and the Media owe Ferraro an apology for taking a truthful, positive comment on how the historical nature of Obama's campaign is a major factor in the excitement people feel for his campaign, and giving it a tortured interpretation that fans the flames of racial division.  They maliciously slandered an electoral trailblazer for their own benefit (but to the detriment of all Americans, white and black).

by costanoan 2008-03-13 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Unbelievable. The worst part of the primary debating on progressive blogs have been the hit jobs on people who are better progressives then either candidate.

Krugman
Feingold
Olberman
etc.

Those supporters of both candidates should be ashamed of themselves.

by js noble 2008-03-13 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

So, saying Hillary has no tears for black people's suffering is less sleazy than implying that Obama isn't ready to be commander in chief how?

by Zorkon 2008-03-13 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

I don't think Ferraro's comment was profoundly stupid.  I think it's obvious that race is a factor in this campaign and that Obama's buzz has a lot to do with the possibility of a first black president.
I think pretending that's not true is just denial and quite ridiculous.

But I don't see why it's such a problem.  Race, class, gender, religion, etc. have alwyas been factors in electoral politics.  As in Ferraro's case as VP nominee and in Hillary's attempt to make history.  What Ferraro observed is stupid only if she makes it problematic, and I think she raised the issue to ask, is he really qualifiedonce the race buzz and enormous support of African-American voters is set aside.  But there's NO reason to set it aside.  There is something tremendously exciting about the Obama candidacy and it will, as Obama has said, change the face of America to teh world, if he is elected.  That's a good thing.  If he was grossly unqualified, that would be bad--but he's clearly not, just less expertienced than typical candidates.

by Thaddeus 2008-03-13 08:06PM | 0 recs
Life isn't fair get over it

We have to win the candidates we have and all of the assorted baggage that goes with it.

I feel sorry for Hillary because she dreamed of being President since 2000 or sooner and she is going down in Flames!!

She had the best hand and misplayed it.  Her campaign  team is the pits.  Too bad.

Have the Clintons made racist remarks you bet.  Has the Obama team exploited them sure has.

88% of African Americans are supporting Obama because Bill Clinton and the Clinton Team over played the race card.

The Obama team has acted like a sports star falling like a rock when brushed but they get fouled Advantage Obama.

Governor Rendel may have been scripted or he may gone off script who knows? But again the Clinton Team injected race when it had no place.

Ferraro has been a total embarrassment.  She is a lose lose for Clinton the Democratic Party and her own family. Advantage no one

Clinton brought it on herself with the renounce and reject so the fact that regret wasn't enough was too bad. Advantage Obama

It is too bad that Clinton is in this race because this last few weeks have all been about trying to be fair to Hillary.  She lost 11 in row no other canidate would have been allowed to stay in the race.  We have fratricide because people are trying to be nice to Hillary.

Advantage Clinton

A 100+ Delegate lead and at least 4 favorable states to Obama left.  She needs more than a miracle.  If the party lets this linger until June we may need to lose in November.

Let her win by 10% in Pennsylvania she has to treat every big state as if she is all in. Obama can pick up smaller states and run out the clock. All we are doing is creating enraged democrats that will shy away from helping the party.

And the worst maybe yet to come if she does narrow the race.  Obama has a whole arsenal of negatives to use against her that don't involve race and a blue dress.

Again I truly Feel sorry for Clinton because she has worked hard but in the end she made the wrong choices and there has to be a loser.  

by jproctor 2008-03-13 08:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

In fairness The side we have been fairly civil because there is baggage on both sides and the Republicans are going to cut Obama and Clinton no slack.  

I hope that we can keep ours sins limited to both sides playing the race card prior to 3-14-08.  

If Hillary gets a victory 15%+ I will eat crow about  running out the clock.  And if she wins by 8% and steps aside for the good of the Party on her own I will call her the great uniter!

by jproctor 2008-03-13 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

If she steps aside, you will lose a good portion of the democratic party, buddy.

by Check077 2008-03-14 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

A post  about injecting race into the campaign misses the point entirely. Ferraro was blatantly, stupefyingly, idiotically wrong. Gerry: Do you seriously think Barack Obama is advantaged because he's BLACK??

Ferraro has pretty much been on the margins since she helped Mondale lose in 1984 and it's a good place for her to be. Her comments about Jesse Jackson's candidacy in the 1980s - remarkably similar to her recent rant about Obama - are indicative of her utter cluelessness.

That HRC waited so long to distance herself from Ferraro and her unabashed ignorance was precisely the point of Olbermann's rant. The big issue at hand is that HRC is running a bad campaign. And, as this mess goes on I am rapidly losing confidence in her leadership ability.

Forget Ferraro for a moment; think about how badly she's botched her once-inevitable path to the Democratic nomination. She started with an insurmountable lead and if she'd been a better candidate she could have maintained much of it. Instead she let herself and countless loyal surrogates go off half-cocked and ruin her chances.

If this is the best she can do, I'd rather look somewhere else. We need leadership more than the  kind of "experience" that leads to hubris and its consequent poor judgment.

by Spiffarino 2008-03-13 10:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Again, all of the new comments I've seen since I've come home from work have been pro-Obama.

THAT must be why all of the caucuses work in his favor.  All of us that work the graveyard shift got to vote in them because we don't work the same hours (or as hard as) those 9-to-5'ers.

Then again I took the day off of work (without pay - I run a club and have to work both the afternoon AND graveyard shift) to vote in the Illinois Primary (which Obama would have obviously won had I neglected to do so).  I also happen to work for someone who claims he'll move out of the country if Obama is elected.

I guess I'm just one of those ignorant idealists who's voting for Obama based on the empty rhetoric of his speeches, not because his getting elected will have any impact on my personal life.  I don't believe in his candidacy enough to make a personal sacrifice.

by doschi 2008-03-14 02:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

"Again, all of the new comments I've seen since I've come home from work have been pro-Obama."

i've noticed this many times!!

by jentwisl 2008-03-14 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

Yawn, another diary that should have been entitled:

"Sore losers get irrational and lash out at everyone around them."

or

"If I reject reality and those that point to it, maybe it will go away."

by lockewasright 2008-03-14 05:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite
Oh, puhleeze, I love Keith Olbermann's show, "Countdown" and I liked his comment. He is trying to be neutral and balanced. It's obvious that Chris M. is in Obama's camp, but Keith is keeping quiet about who his favorite, if he has one, is.
That said, he did point out one important thing... Hillary is imploding  her candidacy by refusing to adequately respond to these attacks on Barack. Ferraro was way out of line, so much so that I am almost sorry that I voted for her (not sorry only cuz my alternative was the GOP)Personally, I think Hillary's supporters are bad losers and Hillary is acting like she is Barack's Republican opponent instead of another Democrat. She's only giving McCan't more ammunition. Does she want another four years of Cheney/Bush? I think that Keith has said enough on his show to demonstrate that he thinks Ferraros's comment are ridiculous and that Hillary is engaging in dirty campaign strategies. Don't diss Keith...aside from Amy Goodman's show, "Democracy Now", "Countdown" is really the only show on American TV that tells it like it really is not like the corporate media, esp. Faux News tells it.
by Dee9lvs 2008-03-14 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite
Rev Wright now gives KO tonight a chance at redemption. He must
go ahead with a special comment to criticize the BO campaign.
by ann0nymous 2008-03-14 03:36PM | 0 recs
FOX rating is up, because MSNBC keeps BS stream

I also noticed many friends, who hates FOX Network, started to watch it again, because they can not tolerate anymore pro-Obama twisted pundits, like Hypocrite Keith and idiots like Chris Mathews who constantly attacks Hillary.

by engels 2008-03-15 04:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann, Hypocrite

I found this blog by inputting "I have lost all respect for Keith Olbermann."  I used to really like his commentary but when I heard the one against Ferraro, I lost all respect for him and I will never watch him again.  I agree with all of dhonig's comments except for the part where he says that Ferraro's comments were "profoundly stupid and offensive."  As an African American I find Ferraro's comments were true.  I don't think Mr. Obama would be where he is now if he wasn't black.  He galvanized the African American population to go out and vote.  Why did Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich drop out of the race?  Well, folks, it's because they weren't black.  Someone made a comment in this blog that Mr. Obama got to where he is because he's an intelligent man.  Are you saying that Edwards, Biden, Dodd, or Kucinich weren't intelligent as well?  I'm a black person but I'm not going to act like an idiot and be all outraged at Ferraro's comments because I happen to think she is right.  For David Axelrod to make it into a racist thing and, for that matter, for him to make everything that comes out of the smallest comments racist is disgusting.  Shame on Axelrod.  Where is Olbermann's commentary because Obama belongs to a religion that has a racist pastor?  Where is his "shame on you Obama for choosing to stay in a church where your pastor is racist."  I don't see Clinton's camp screaming that Mr. Obama is a racist himself because he chooses to stay in that racist church.  I am a very highly educated black woman but I won't turn a blind eye to what is real.  I'm a Democrat that is so sick of Obamania and since my vote for Hillary is a throwaway anyway, I'm writing in my choice for president-Al Gore.  

by yheitman 2008-03-15 05:45PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads