Keith Olbermann: Much Ado About Something

Crossposted fromMY LEFT WING

Any sentient being could comprehend the collective gasp of shock that resounded through the media (and through the millions of us who remain tuned in to the ongoing Democratic primary) when Senator Hillary Clinton uttered her latest gaffe referencing the 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in an inept attempt to both avoid answering a question whose answer is obvious and to rationalise her refusal to withdraw from the Democratic campaign for its party's nomination.

By now, in fact, even people who haven't been paying attention know about Senator Clinton's most recent jawdropper. It'd be difficult not to know about it, given the avalanche of attention it's received in the past 24 hours.

I stipulate to the astonishing nature of Senator Clinton's comment. I stipulate to the propriety of calling it offensive in the extreme.

But Mr. Olbermann, to quote... well, you: You have gone too far.

Few could claim to admire Keith Olbermann more deeply than I; for years, I have witnessed with joy and relief his courage and tenacity and intelligence in delivering the sole dissenting voice in televised media in the face of the Bush Administration and its GOP enablers. I consider Mr. Olbermann an admirable, honourable and brilliant advocate of reason and truth, and believe he deserves a Pulitzer for his coverage in this age of Orwellian obfuscation in most corporate media.

(And though doubtless motivated primarily by profit, acknowledgement of NBC's fortitude in its support of Olbermann's continued presence on MSNBC must be made. God knows allowing an avowed liberal Democrat his own hourly forum five days a week wasn't the safest route to take in the cable news business.)

That said, I couldn't help but cringe while watching Olbermann's latest Special Comment, excoriating Senator Clinton for her "Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June" blunder.

This is the first Special Comment of Mr. Olbermann's with which I've ever taken issue. With each successive Special Comment, Olbermann grows in my esteem and admiration -- not to mention wholehearted gratitude, but he stumbled last night. And since I don't believe in ignoring missteps and errors of judgement simply because they come from allies, it is incumbent upon me to voice my disappointment and disapproval of Mr. Olbermann's choices in commenting upon Senator Clinton's assassination remark...

First and, I think, most important, and applicable not only to Keith Olbermann but to anyone who got caught up in his soaring (and, admittedly, rousing) rhetoric: This entire "controversy" reeks of the sort of Faux Outrage frequently employed by the Republican neoconservative movement of recent years.

The fact that this tactic proves successful so often for the right wing -- and that it now appears an occasionally successful tactic for the left and even moderates -- may seem a valid reason to adopt it or co-opt it ourselves. Perhaps so; if our only aim is defeating the right wing, then a case can be made for using their own tactics against them.

But, as I've stated repeatedly over the years and has been put far more eloquently by others, in our struggle against our enemies (whoever they be) we must take care not to become what we would defeat.

In other words, if all is fair in our political game now the way it has been for some time in theirs -- what the fuck is the difference between us? Spare me the "But we're right" argument; anyone who says that and doesn't admit he's just claimed the ends justify the means is either an imbecile or a liar. That argument is, in all likelihood, the rationale espoused behind closed doors by the majority of the (probably) well-intentioned right wing.

And in embracing the Faux Outrage card played so long by the right wing, those of us on the left have just taken another step on the slippery slope to where good intentions end.

Further, playing that card against a rival faction or member of our own tribe bespeaks still more steps on that slope. How long before we lose our footing and reach a slide of inexorable descent that mirrors the one experienced by the Republicans some thirty years ago, and hit a nadir similar to the one they did in this past decade?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I believe what we witnessed in Olbermann's fulmination last night was Last Straw Syndrome: an exaggerated sense of fury provoked not by am independent, genuinely "unforgivable" --albeit, admittedly, outrageous -- act, but by the culmination of a series of alternately outrageous, disingenuous or patently absurd acts.

Taken alone, Senator Clinton's monstrously insensitive comment would probably evoke a shocked and angry reaction; but as evinced by the mildly tempered universal reaction (or lack thereof) when she first made an almost verbatim comment earlier in the primary season, as a stand-alone act it simply does not warrant the descriptor of "Unforgivable." What it warrants, in fact, is the response Senator Barack Obama gave it:

"I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Senator Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make and I think that is what happened here. Senator Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it and I will take her at her word on that."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Keith Olbermann's hitting one sour note after a string of brilliant arias is, obviously, forgivable. Disturbing, but forgivable; after all, Olbermann designates his Special Comments as such because they are clearly his personal territory, moments when he just cannot take it anymore and simply must vent. Many of us in Blogdom commonly issue our own"Special Comments," though here on the Internets they are known as... Rants©.

What disturbs me more than Olbermann's misstep here is the exponential multiplication of similar responses from the choir. Granted, even that is forgivable; but every time the chorus of the left echoes a sour note the cacophony resembles more and more the dissonant screeching of the christofascist right wing zombie brigade -- an ugly reminder of just how narrow the distance truly is between extremists on the right and left, and yes, I count myself among that latter number. We are all susceptible to reflexive thought and action; enlightened self-awareness notwithstanding, even the best-intentioned among us can fall prey to our baser instincts.

I hope this doesn't read like a defense of Senator Clinton or her reckless remark, because that's not my intention. I'm the last person to give her the benefit of the doubt at this stage; her behaviour thus far in the primary season merely confirms my long-held belief that I would find her only microscopically more tolerable a President than any Republican. Nor do I necessarily believe that Clinton's words actually were thoughtless or careless. To the contrary: I actually think she knew exactly what she was saying, and that the only "mistake"(to her mind, that is) was her staggering ignorance of just how fast and hard the negative response would be.

However: It is one thing to privately or believe the worst of candidate Clinton and respond as such. But it is tone deaf folly to "give her the benefit of the doubt," as Olbermann and others have done, and proceed to excoriate her with exactly the fervour and venom reserved for those who do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

So, Mr. Olbermann, what is it to be? Do you secretly believe, as I do, that Clinton knew exactly what she was saying -- and therefore deserves every ounce of our ire and outrage... Or did you aim your diatribe at the right target for the wrong reason? If the former, then you owe it to yourself and your audience to admit the true nature of your response; and if the latter, then you owe your audience an apology and apologia.

Of course, were Mr. Olbermann to read and respond, it's likely he would reply that neither answer applies, that he sincerely believed last night in the "unforgivable" nature of Ms. Clinton's words irrespective of her intent.

To which I would have to respond: You were wrong.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Disturbing as Senator Clinton's remark was, with respect to her injudicious juxtaposing of the 1968 Kennedy assassination with the 2008 primary, two elements of this situation disturb me far more:

First, the categorically disingenuous nature of Clinton's comparison of the 1992 primary season to the current one as rationale for her remaining in the race: Clinton knows damned well she's comparing apples and oranges and blueberries with that nonsensical argument.

In the first place, 1992 could not possibly compare to 2008, if only because the primary calendars of each differ so radically she might as well have drawn a comparison between this year's race and the Roman run-up to Julius Caesar's appointment as Supreme Dictator. By June of 1992, Bill Clinton had already won the Democratic party's nomination in all but official terms.

(The 1968 primary contest between Humphrey, McCarthy and Kennedy might have led, arguably, to a contested convention because of Humphrey and McCarthy's refusal to concede defeat after Kennedy's narrow California win; ironically, Senator Clinton's comparison to 1968 holds far more water than to 1992.)

Hillary Clinton's intractable refusal to acknowledge the disparity between her husband's primary and her own is, by now, par for her course. The junior Democratic Senator from New York, it turns out, has one terrible thing in common with her husband: a seemingly genetic tendency to lie when it is convenient, with little to no regard for the blatant transparency of her lies to even the casual observer -- and a constitutional incapability to consider the ramifications of telling outright lies in a society with 24-hour cable news outlets, not to mention Google.

Keith Olbermann actually did address, although too briefly, the second disquieting aspect of this latest debacle: The absurdly equivocating nature of Senator Clinton's "expression of regret" in response to the avalanche of criticism of her remarks on Friday.

I suspect that, had Clinton immediately and unequivocally answered her critics with a no-holds-barred "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, the entire brouhaha might have amounted to a smattering of aghast but resigned admonitions; certainly her tastelessness and judgement would have been fair game, but Clinton could have diffused the situation considerably had she quickly and simply apologised and in no uncertain terms acknowledged the degree to which her comment was patently inappropriate.

Of course, given her track record, it may well be that Senator Clinton is not only congenitally inclined to lie when she finds it convenient but equally inherently incapable of issuing a straightforward apology without adding so many caveats as to transform even the simplest apology into an apologia, thus through "explanation" rendering the apology ultimately moot. I suspect this to be the case, so perhaps this latest conflagration was ultimately inevitable.

Still, I cannot help but maintain my premise: That the intensity of the uproar over Senator Clinton's remarks is, while not as inappropriate as the remarks themselves, nevertheless what a psychiatrist might call "misplaced anger." A far more appropriate Special Comment from Keith Olbermann would be, for instance, directed at the totality of Senator Clinton's actions and words since the moment when the inevitability of Senator Obama's victory in this primary became irrefutable... by everyone except Senator Clinton herself.

Now, that is a Special Comment I want to see.

Tags: assassination, clinton, Democratic Primary, Kennedy, obama, Olbermann, RFK (all tags)



That's how I see it, anyway.

by Maryscott OConnor 2008-05-24 06:16PM | 0 recs
What I see lately...

with regards to Clinton is half of the democratic party becoming as demented in their hate of her as the right wing christofascist brigade. At the rate things are going, I wouldn't be shocked if Bill Clinton himself change his party affiliation to Independent like thousands of Clinton supporters are doing.

by cosbo 2008-05-24 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: That's how I see it, anyway.


I'm not sure I understand your criticism.  I agree that criticism of this particular incident is over the top but I took Olbermann's as a comment as much about her history of actions in the campaign as much as about this comment.  It was indeed a "last straw" rant.  But what's wrong with that?

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-24 06:30PM | 0 recs
Oh, I have to disagree.

Watch it again: he repeatedly makes her use of the word -- and spectre of -- "assassination" the subject of his "At long last have you no shame" outrage. He alludes to the Last Strawness of it, but focuses the brutal intensity of his anger and verbal chastisement on the "assassination" thing.
by Maryscott OConnor 2008-05-24 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, I have to disagree.

Hmm..  I'll go back and check it out.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-24 08:14PM | 0 recs
two problems

but as evinced by the mildly tempered universal reaction (or lack thereof) when she first made an almost verbatim comment earlier in the primary season,

1. Would that argument hold water if we were talking abut Tuzla sniper fire?

2. Did Kieth know of the previous utterances at the time they occurred?

3. Were Clinton's chances so remote back then, that people wouldn't have glossed right over it among the blizzard of far fetched routes to the nomination being offered?

Second problem occurs only when you remove the cynicism needed to buy the first problem.

If the first utterances weren't publicized in any broad reach way then you must take people's visceral reaction to the voicing of their fears as honest.

Therefore, your cynical detachment might serve you, but for many of us who fear the possibility Hillary gave voice to, the denunciation she received was not only cathartic but in our eyes just.

Kieth has always been able to capture the zeitgeist of the progressive community and has shown a tremendous empathy when giving voice to our constituency.

Before you claim Kieth's outrage was not genuine or a result of camel/straw please relive that sad sad day.

by ameridad 2008-05-24 06:44PM | 0 recs
Did you REALLY read what I wrote?


I actually think she knew exactly what she was saying, and that the only "mistake" (to her mind, that is) was her staggering ignorance of just how fast and hard the negative response would be.

So, Mr. Olbermann, what is it to be? Do you secretly believe, as I do, that Clinton knew exactly what she was saying -- and therefore deserves every ounce of our ire and outrage...

by Maryscott OConnor 2008-05-24 06:59PM | 0 recs
I'm sorry

I don't understand the context of your quote in relation to my post.

And I should have explained that cynicism in 2008 is a healthy thing.

It just clouds our assessment of emotionally charged events and therefore needs to be weighted accordingly in our arguments.

by ameridad 2008-05-24 07:06PM | 0 recs
In relation to your post...

You said

Therefore, your cynical detachment might serve you, but for many of us who fear the possibility Hillary gave voice to, the denunciation she received was not only cathartic but in our eyes just.

My response was an affirmation that I feel the same way.

The criticism of Olbermann's Special Comment depends strongly on the fact that he gave her "the benefit of the doubt" and then proceeded to denounce her as if he hadn't given her "the benefit of the doubt."

I guess what I'm trying to say, very inarticulately, is that his denunciation was better suited to the context of accusing her of knowing EXACTLY what she was saying -- irrespective of the motive behind it. Tired is no excuse for a woman as smart and politically media savvy as she; there is no way she could NOT know how incredibly inappropriate the remark was, and therefore we must assume that she did it with forethought.

Did I just muddle things even further, or did that clear it up for you?

by Maryscott OConnor 2008-05-24 07:12PM | 0 recs
no acctually

now I get it.

Let's see if I really do...

Kieth should have just come right out and accused her of purposely injecting the fear of assassination to justify her staying in a race in which she has no other conceivable way of winning.

Instead, with a wink and a nod, he said didn't think thats what she meant but told her off as if she had.

If that is correct I still disagree :)

I think the outrage for having used the argument in the first place without assigning motive was justified.

He didn't have to impugn her integrity to give voice to the outrage because her stature, and political circumstances currently, should have dictated she not choose such unacceptable imagery when defending her position to remain in the race.

But hey, thanks for the chat.

by ameridad 2008-05-24 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: That's how I see it, anyway.

You are welcome to your opinion, and I respect that.  However, I agree with Mr. Olbermann on this one.

She went there.  And she hasn't shown contrition.  I'm not happy about it.  I'm not exactly putting together an angry mob with pitchforks and torches so we can storm the castle, but I am mad, and disappointed in her.

In terms pretty similar to those he expressed.  He supported her early on, and he admired her openly.  That has ended as she has campaigned in a way that lowers her.

He's just calling her on it.  If nobody tells you you've sold out, how the hell will you ever know it?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-24 07:20PM | 0 recs
Nice to see you here, honey

Let's hope the discussion remains on subject.

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-05-24 09:20PM | 0 recs
I agree. KO was a bit

over the top last night. But he and many others had reason to be.

It's not the first time she or her surrogates have let slip something stupid that could be misconstrued  to mean terrible things.

People have to pick their words wisely; that's part of being a diplomat and figurehead.

That so many people could misconstrue those words to mean something like that shows one simple thing: it was a dumb thing to say. If she wants to fight over it like some here want to, she'll lose. Simple as that.

Our media and our quick impulses chose which words are and aren't alright.

KO went a bit overboard, yes, but he's good on everything else and hasn't done too much wrong lately, so I give him a pass.

Still one of the shining gems in punditry. You take what you get.

by Lord Hadrian 2008-05-24 06:21PM | 0 recs
He has gone over the top

and lost a lot of credibility with a lot of people.

by catfish2 2008-05-24 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: He has gone over the top

Coming from you, that's remarkable.  I'm even a little shocked you know what that word means.

And yes, yes, TR me.  I know you're going to.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-24 07:21PM | 0 recs
Well the rules say

you're not supposed to stalk users into other diaries, and should respond to the comment not the commenter.

by catfish2 2008-05-24 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Well the rules say

Stalking would imply that I followed you, or rather your precursor.

I just noticed that someone who has TR'ed me more times than I care to count had posted something ironic.

No stalking.  Happenstance isn't stalking.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-24 07:54PM | 0 recs
Off Topic

How does that relate to this diary?

by catfish2 2008-05-24 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Off Topic

How does yours?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-24 08:18PM | 0 recs
This is silly.

How about a truce?
by Maryscott OConnor 2008-05-24 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: This is silly.


by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-24 08:23PM | 0 recs
Keith Olbermann is a toon.

And not even a good toon, at that.

I wonder if they have to wipe the spit off of his teleprompter when he decides to go after Senator Clinton.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-24 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann is a toon.

Most of the haters actually wear a bib when they are not on camera.

by Scotch 2008-05-24 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann is a toon.

Did you think that before he became critical of Clinton?

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-24 06:31PM | 0 recs

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-24 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Yup!

Then that means you're very likely a Busheep? Yup, I think it does. The ONLY people I've seen who dislike Keith Olbermann are people who have a problem with how he slams the slimebag in the White House.

by ratmach 2008-05-24 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Yup!

Not at all. I do not think that the proper reaction to a discourse composed solely of right wing spittle flecked diatribes is to broadcast left wing spittle flecked diatribes for "balance". KO's first "special comment" about Bush and Co. was over the top, but very refreshing. After that, he has felt the need to go more and more over the top to keep his audience tuning in to see just how far he will go this time. He jumped the shark long ago.

If we are liberals and small-d democrats, then we should deliberate on the issues and candidates using reason and reality. KO is all about entertainment - Howard Beale style. He styles himself as Edward R. Murrow, but the only real resemblance is that KO copies Murrow's sign-off: "Good night, and good luck." KO is not fit to hold Murrow's jacket.

"This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. Good night, and good luck."

~Edward R. Murrow in a speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Association (RTNDA) convention in Chicago (15 October 1958)

by itsthemedia 2008-05-24 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Yup!

How any non-Bush-supporter can have a problem with ANYTHING Keith has said about that slimebag is beyond me! If anything, Olbermann has been TOO POLITE to Bush at times. He sometimes refers to him as "President Bush", or "Mr. Bush." Only rarely does he refer to him as "fascist" or "warmonger", or "liar", or "criminal." If anything, Keith needs to use those words EVERY SINGLE TIME he addresses Bush, just so it'll eventually sink in to people on the fence.

In case I haven't made myself clear: George W. Bush is evil personified, who deserves at a minimum life in prison... and at best, to wind up like Mussolini. So there's really NOTHING Keith can say about Bush that is too extreme. And if you believe he says what he says for "entertainment" purposes, and that his comments aren't filled with REAL emotion... well, I don't think I can help you.

by ratmach 2008-05-24 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Yup!

KO's rants might make people like you and me feel better, but frankly he does not advance the ball for our side much that way. You and I already do not like Bush, and think that he is likely guilty of war crimes, and crimes against the Constitution. But by ranting and raving, KO does not reach that middle 50% of the people who are vaguely aware that he has performed poorly, but are not educated on exactly what the law is, or how Bush has flouted it. When they see a rant, all they get out of it is "this guy is really angry". What we need is not more KOs, but more Bill Moyerses.

by itsthemedia 2008-05-24 10:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Yup!

He's not the only one who "turned nastily on Hillary". A LOT of people, me included, have done that. But not all at once. I was pretty neutral about her until a few months ago. But then, slowly, inexorably, she began moving more and more into the Bush/Rove realm of behaviour. THAT is when I (and I suspect Keith) began turning on her. I have trouble even considering her a Democrat any more.

by ratmach 2008-05-24 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Yup!

So he was great until he disagreed with you?

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-24 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann: Much Ado About Something

He forgot its Hillary that is supportive of gays and lesbians. Just wait til he falls in love and can;t get married in a year or so.

by coolofthenight 2008-05-24 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann: Much Ado About Something

I forget.  Who is Olberman, again?  And why is it I should care what he thinks or says?

by Scotch 2008-05-24 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann: Much Ado About Something

Ummm... he just happens to be the man who's gonna help the rest of the MSM finally WAKE UP to the crimes of the Bush Regime. When Bush and his buddies are finally behind bars, Keith will be one of the heroes who helped put them there. Do you care about THAT?

by ratmach 2008-05-24 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann: Much Ado About Something

LOL.  Whatever.

by Scotch 2008-05-24 06:33PM | 0 recs
I know who he is

he is a political commentator, straight from sports broadcasting, who abuses his placement in a journalistic roll in order to further his own interests- just like Bill O'Reilly. God, I wish Bill Clinton would have reinstated the fairness doctrine...

by linc 2008-05-24 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: I know who he is

I understand. You'd prefer that he (like most other commentators) would just totally IGNORE the crimes of Bush and Co. Unfortunately for Bush supporters, though, I don't think Keith is gonna shut up about that any time soon.

by ratmach 2008-05-24 07:26PM | 0 recs
No, you don't understand
Once upon a time, the left, particularly the netroots, were concerned with journalistic integrity, concerned with principled reporting rather than the opinion of those trusted with OUR media.  I remember a day when bias in the media was considered inappropriate and unprofessional- but that was when journalists and those that say, host the evening news or its cable equivalent, were expected to at least attempt objectivity.

It is not about having an attack dog on television to show Bush to be an idiot- he does that very well himself.  Its about having a fair and honest discussion of things like facts- not opinion.
by linc 2008-05-24 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you don't understand

I know it seems like ages ago, but "once upon a time" was as recent as early 2007. The largely Internet driven debunking of Bush's SS privatization initiative was in 2005. Who knew then that we were in the golden era of netroots integrity.

by itsthemedia 2008-05-24 11:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann: Much Ado About Something

Yeah, I would have liked to see Kieth deal with more than just the Bobby Kennedy statement. In a way he did, when he rattled off the list of things Hillary has said and done, and that we've "forgiven" her for. But the "special comment" was, no doubt, concentrated mainly on the FRK gaffe.

Still, I won't blame Keith for that. He had what?... maybe two or three hours between the time the story broke and the time he went on-air? Not alot of time to put together a fully researched comment on each and every Bushlike thing Hillary (and her campaign) has done for the past few months. In fact, such a comment should go even deeper... maybe delving into Hillary's links to the DLC, and how that organization should be run right out of the Democratic Party!

But all in all, I appreciate where Keith was coming from, and why he (like most of us) was so upset. It wasn't, in my opinion, just the RFK thing. I think it was all just building up, and this was "the last straw."

by ratmach 2008-05-24 06:29PM | 0 recs
You have to be kidding right?

So Keith Olbermann is not on the right track, he should rather be telling HRC that she is disingenuous for not ceding a race that has yet to finish?  All because of Obama's inevitability?  Why do I feel like most observers of the political process in this country view it through a sensationalized, instant gratification lens?  Oh, wait....

by linc 2008-05-24 06:33PM | 0 recs
I support Clinton...

But your writing is excellent and your nuanced reasoning skills are superlative.  Rec'd.

by BPK80 2008-05-24 06:33PM | 0 recs
Thank you!

Appreciated, muchly.

by Maryscott OConnor 2008-05-24 06:56PM | 0 recs
douchey is as douchey does....

and it shows

April Ratings: Rankers
Fox News finished April as the seventh most highly rated cable network in prime time. CNN finished at #21 and MSNBC finished 29th.

In Total Day, FNC came in at #9, well ahead of CNN (25th) and MSNBC (30th).

Fox News had nine of the top ten highest rated programs for the month of April, with The O'Reilly Factor capturing the top spot again. CNN's highest rated show was Larry King Live (7th), while MSNBC's was Countdown with Keith Olbermann (19th).

In the A25-54 demo, FNC had seven of the top ten programs. LKL finished 6th and Countdown came in 9th.

by canadian gal 2008-05-24 06:43PM | 0 recs

so Kieth is a douche coming from a woman = perfectly cool.

Ferraro is a douche coming from an anonymous poster = hideously sexist.

Glad to know you are considered one of the more reasonable hillary shills here.

by ameridad 2008-05-24 06:51PM | 0 recs
i very rarely TR but damn that felt good!

for attacking another user - me!

by canadian gal 2008-05-24 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: i very rarely TR but damn that felt good!

Sorry CG, but ameridad has a point....  a valid one at that.

It seems as though some language is allowable to Clinton supporters because, well, they are Clinton supporters, so it's okay.  But woe unto the unsuspecting fool that uses the same language... they will get excoriated.

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-24 07:50PM | 0 recs
sorry - i represent only 1 HRC supporter -


and i rather like that word, especially when it so eloquently describes the content of the diary. i take no offense at it in any sexist way.  

by canadian gal 2008-05-24 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: lol

Oh, stop bitching!

by deminva 2008-05-24 07:26PM | 0 recs
I stopped reading

after your first paragraph.

by Coldblue 2008-05-24 06:48PM | 0 recs
Thanks for taking the time to comment.

by Maryscott OConnor 2008-05-24 06:57PM | 0 recs
Your welcome n/t

by Coldblue 2008-05-24 07:01PM | 0 recs
My welcome?

Oh. Never mind.
by Maryscott OConnor 2008-05-24 07:04PM | 0 recs

I didn't preview for grammar.

I suppose that strikes my comment.

by Coldblue 2008-05-24 07:10PM | 0 recs
pish tosh

Just playing, CB.
by Maryscott OConnor 2008-05-24 07:13PM | 0 recs
Glad to see

that you're (see, I can do it) posting again.

We may not agree on many issues but I respect your compassion.

Be well MSOC.

by Coldblue 2008-05-24 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: pish tosh

Hey, Maryscott!  I wish you around for all the folks who talk about how Clinton is the most electable candidate.  Every time, I want to say "it's the more electable candidate, you doofus!"

by deminva 2008-05-24 07:28PM | 0 recs
You are right

nothing is more refreshingly arrogant than the pedantic grammar troll.

by linc 2008-05-24 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: You are right

I don't apologize for correct grammar or rational thought.  I check my posts for both because I care about the quality of what I offer to the community here, of which I've been a member since 2002.  If I'm a troll, then what the fuck are you?

by deminva 2008-05-24 07:55PM | 0 recs
You missed my point

or did you forget that in your comment above, that you called troll all those that argue that Clinton is the most/more electable?

by linc 2008-05-24 07:58PM | 0 recs

I need to get off the computer... I have been writing style sheets and php for the last eight hours... I obviously can't read straight and totally confused your comment.  Super sorry, here is some mojo.

by linc 2008-05-24 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: You are right

really?  You left out a verb in the FIRST sentence!

by slynch 2008-05-24 09:12PM | 0 recs
Re: You are right

You're right.  Sorry about that!  I'll try to do better in the future.

by deminva 2008-05-25 05:01AM | 0 recs
Re: You are right

with all the grammar problems here, that's a minor one.  Again, I was just giving you a hard time.  I'm a grammar stickler myself, but I constantly make errors here--probably because of haste.  But, I also think that there's something built-in on the website that mangles words when we post :)

by slynch 2008-05-25 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: pish tosh

It is "most" electable if you're including any other dems or McCain in there.  Or, if you're comparing to a pool of hypothetical candidates.  I think you're being a wee bit picky.

by slynch 2008-05-24 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: pish tosh

I was referring to the many occasions when the poster's context is specifically Clinton or Obama.

by deminva 2008-05-25 05:00AM | 0 recs
Re: pish tosh

yeah, I know.  I'm giving you somewhat of a hard time.  I was just talking about this particular grammaer issue two days ago (use of the superlative with two choices).

by slynch 2008-05-25 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: pish tosh

Actually, I think "most" is correct. There are more than two active candidates for President in the Democratic party you know. A few people are still hoping for a Gravelanche in Denver!

by itsthemedia 2008-05-24 11:15PM | 0 recs
Re: My welcome?

Your welcome mat that is in front of your front door.

My gawd, Maryscott.
Your so picky-picky.

When I made a similar comment about "Your" vs "You're" at DKos I got trolled to death.  
It seems that the Queen's English is used now only by queens.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-24 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann: Much Ado About Something

a simple fact..cause I was around then..
Kennedy would have defeated HHH because RFK opposed the fucking war..and HHH did not.
Obama on 6/3 ..will have defeated Sen. Clinton (in reality he has already done so) because in 2002 he opposed the fucking war and in 2002 she did not.

My only problem with KO is he should also have emphasized her incredible hyperbole earlier in the week when she compared the Mi FL situation to when we had slavery, the civil rights movement..and freakin' Zimbabwe...

by nogo postal 2008-05-24 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann: Much Ado About Something

On the question of 1968 being a valid comparison:

No. Not hardly. Not even close.

Not unless one recalls that as late as the last day of March - MARCH! - the race wasn't "Humphrey, McCarthy and Kennedy." The race was incumbent LBJ, with challenges from McCarthy and then - only AFTER LBJ defeated McCarthy in New Hampshire - the entry of RFK. (The closer analogy at that point would have been 1980, with Ted Kennedy challenging sitting president Jimmy Carter.)

It wasn't until April 1, after Johnson decided not to run for re-election after all, that the race took the form it would assume.

Which means it was all of nine weeks old on that painful night in Los Angeles, and was in many ways just getting underway when the whole world turned upside down yet again.

by ipsos 2008-05-24 07:15PM | 0 recs
Point taken, and well.

I sit corrected.

So, while the '68 primary started late and the '92 primary finished early, the '08 primary started early and finishes late...

I'm considering re-writing that part, but frankly the carpal is kicking in.

Nevertheless, thank you for the correction; one must never look a gift education in the mouth.

by Maryscott OConnor 2008-05-24 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Point taken, and well.

This history major is just glad to be able to put his education to some practical use, believe me!

by ipsos 2008-05-24 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann: Much Ado About Something

Good point, if our minds are google reference guides. To those of us who remember this first hand, RFK died in June, and her (thoughtless) point was about races going into June.

by NY Writer 2008-05-24 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann: Much Ado About Something

Sorry--KO has lost any credbility he had when he went on his anti-Clinton witch hunt. I never thought he had much talent to begin with, anyway. We can do better--he's just like O'Reilly except from the left.

by zcflint05 2008-05-24 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, MSOC

KO has been getting really preachy of late.
Almost rivalling the Most Rev. Wright.
Nothing is more of a turn-off than a preachy liberal.

I especially loved the "unforgivable" part.
I'm glad to know that Olbermann had now made himself the great dispenser of forgiveness.
And isn't it just like a man to do that?
Dispense or withhold forgiveness to the little woman.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-24 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, MSOC

This Chicago Tribune article details death wishes toward Hillary from the MSM.

From the article:

On CNN, pundit Alex Castellanos said democrats must realize that "it's time to take the family dog to the vet." Matthews' MSNBC colleague Keith Olbermann expressed the hope that "somebody will take her into a room--and only he comes out." CNN's Jack Cafferty gleefully floated the specter of Clinton being run over by a flatbed truck. ifestyle/chi-fempower-0518may18,0,433371 4.column

by NY Writer 2008-05-24 08:35PM | 0 recs
That's no death wish

It's disingenuous to suggest it's a death wish. He was employing an obvious metaphor.

Obvious to anyone but the literal minded, the feeble minded and the already-made-up-minded, that is.

by Maryscott OConnor 2008-05-24 08:53PM | 0 recs
Re: That's no death wish

Soooo you're saying it's acceptable to talk about a candidate being killed if it's a well-known metaphor that's being used to supposedly "joke" about it (the noted examples above being only a few of the many I've heard coming from commentators directed at Hillary), but it's not acceptable to talk about a former candidate's actual death that is a fact of history most readily recall?  Especially when it's being used, along with other examples, to make a point about time?  And to do so obviously means you're wishing death on your opposing candidate?  

I appreciate your willingness to call KO out on this "rant" despite obviously being a fan of his (I honestly had to flip the channel partway through his "rant" because he was making me so very angry).  But to dismiss the many publicly stated comments of commentators toward Hillary as being "obvious metaphors" is unacceptable.  No, I doubt anybody took any of those comments as literal "death wishes," but that doesn't make them acceptable or appropriate.  

It's just another example, quite honestly, of the lopsided treatment given to Hillary and Barack throughout this election--things that are seemingly considered quite acceptable when spoken about Hillary being off-limits when spoken about Barack.  This country has come a long way in fighting both racism and sexism (not nearly far enough, but it has come far)--however, this election makes it painfully clear that we have much further to go when it comes to battling sexism.  

by ChargedFan 2008-05-25 07:47AM | 0 recs
Okay, let's go with that paradigm:

If every single aspect of this contest were reversed except Clinton's gender and Obama's race...

Am I honestly expected to believe that the Clinton camp wouldn't have been haranguing Obama to drop out after her 12 state win? Or that they wouldn't be screaming bloody murder at his about face on Michigan and Florida?

Would Clinton be stumping all over Florida demanding their votes be counted or risk disenfranchisement akin to 2000? Would she be demanding the Michigan votes be counted despite her absence from the ballot?

Would she dismiss the controversies over her pastor's remarks and her association with a former member of the Weather Underground as irrelevant distractions? Would she accuse the Obama camp of making a mockery of the process by lobbing accusations of elitism at her?

Would Clinton argue that the math is crystal clear and that Obama hadn't even a snowball's statistical chance in hell of winning the nomination unless he managed to get votes counted in states he'd previously chided for defying the DNC rules?

Would Obama be announcing his belief that he was justified in staying in the race long after said math made it clear that even with those votes being counted he could not win without the support of superdelegates who surely would support her barring a cataclysmic event like, say, her assassination?

Intellectual dishonesty is something we've all decried for years in the Bush Administration and on the right wing; if any Clintonian claims with a straight face that if the situations were reversed she'd happily take the same positions vis a vis Michigan, Florida et al, s/he's lying -- either to himself/herself or to the rest of us.

by Maryscott OConnor 2008-05-25 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, let's go with that paradigm:

While I appreciate where you're coming from with your list of questions, none of them addresses the question I raised pertaining to the matter being discussed, so I'll repeat the first most relevant question I asked:  

"Soooo you're saying it's acceptable to talk about a candidate being killed if it's a well-known metaphor that's being used to supposedly "joke" about it (the noted examples above being only a few of the many I've heard coming from commentators directed at Hillary), but it's not acceptable to talk about a former candidate's actual death that is a fact of history most readily recall?"

In seeing how you tried to divert the matter to a whole separate list of matters, one might assume that, yes, you do feel it's acceptable to joke about killing Hillary...apparently justified by the list of matters you go on to address in your subsequent questions.  But I'll give the benefit of the doubt, here, and not make assumptions that you're condoning such behavior.  But while I'm at it, I'll also note that many of the commentator comments directed at Hillary ("death threat jokes," sexist insults, and myriad others) were made before any of the events you go on to note.  So, again, I repeat my original question.

by ChargedFan 2008-05-25 09:08AM | 0 recs
Sorry about that

I meant to answer that question, honestly.

My answer, in a nutshell? Yes. Employing metaphors like the ones referenced is perfectly acceptable to me. In any circumstance.

by Maryscott OConnor 2008-05-25 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Sorry about that

Fair enough--no apologies needed as it's easy for such oversights in the midst of "heated" and/or complicated conversations.  And since you have clarified your position, I'll have to respectfully disagree--I do not feel it is appropriate or acceptable to even "joke" about killing a candidate (or anybody), regardless of the circumstances, but most especially coming from the commentators who are supposed to be giving us the news.  To cite somebody else who was coming down on Hillary for her comment, he said something to the tune of "who's to say there's not some nut job out there hearing her comment who won't take it seriously and try to assassinate Barack?"  But to follow your tract and turn that around, the same could be said about there possibly being some nut job out there hearing these commentators speaking and try to "take her out in back of the barn..."

And, since you've answered my main question, I'll do my best to answer yours as well--although they're not all arguments that I have an answer for or will try to defend.  Since many of your questions require applying a "what if" hypothetical, I'll give you that some of the arguments made may very well not be being made if the shoe were reversed as you suggest.  

But in my opinion, Michigan and Florida represent something of a unique situation.  While there have in fact been some seeming changes of opinion on those states by the Clinton campaign, coupled by some strategic maneuvering on Obama's part that have in part created the difficulties now being faced with trying to choose our candidate, I feel that attention must be paid to those states considering how close this election has proven to be and the fact that our end goal should be to ensure we beat McCain in November.  I believe Hillary recognizes this, and is therefore drawing attention to something that could prove critical to our winning in November (and please note, I was signing petitions to get Michigan and Florida counted long before Hillary began the argument--although I was initially suggesting a revote in Michigan in order to get them counted).  And, I will say that if the shoes were reversed, I would think Barack had every right to address them as well.  This is due to the fact that even though "delegates" are not being counted from those states, there is no hiding the fact that real people did place real votes...and those real votes contradict the direction this election has taken, and in my opinion the attempt to "mask those real votes" changed the whole dynamic of the election up to that point.    

I don't think she would dismiss controversies over her pastor's remarks and her association with a former member of the Weather Underground as irrelevant distractions.  Rather I believe she would address them head-on.  But at least regarding the pastor's comments, I believe this is a highly unlikely "what if."  And I do believe there's some basis for that thinking.  She was born and raised staunch Republican--and as any who've studied her whatsoever know, she fully engaged herself in Republican politics.  Isn't the fact that she in essence "walked out on" her political party to become Democrat and follow the course she did politically evidence that this is a woman who will follow her beliefs?  That is but one example.  It's often struck me that Hillary is the only candidate who's not had her religious beliefs or associations questioned whatsoever--I'm sure it's not for lack of trying, but it would seem her affiliations are not attackable in that regard.  Not that the Methodist Church is immune from controversy--but she's apparently managed to avoid associations that raise such questions.  I don't believe that most affiliate the Methodist church with being a highly controversial one--and I say that as a lifelong Methodist myself.  But I once sat in my Methodist church and watched in horror and disgust as the pastor passed out a petition for parishioners to sign that purported a belief that "homosexuals needed healing" and watching most everybody in the church sign it--hence came the end of my youth pastoring in that church under that Pastor. But seeing how my own Mom's staunch beliefs on that topic were formed by that long-time Pastor (which became very painful for her when I her daughter later came out to her), I believe it very appropriate to question Barack's beliefs after sitting in Reverend Wright's pews for 20 years and readily claiming him to be such an important figure in Barack's life...which even after the controversy erupted, Barack tried to sweep under the carpet as unmeaningful, at least UNTIL such time as Reverend Wright actually responded in a way that questioned Barack's sincerity and intent.  

Regarding the several questions about the "math," I find it hard to discuss those issues as I myself believe we have to look at more than the math.  As with most things in life, "this math" is not black-and-white, but rather leaves many gray areas.  And considering that I'm often the one to bring up such gray areas, I don't believe I'd have a problem with any analytical discussion of or attempt to interpret the "math."  That may simply be a philosophical difference of viewpoints.

Bottom line, I think both candidates have been somewhat intellectually dishonest in trying to make their points.  Politics is unfortunately frought with that--and to say that Barack has not engaged in such intellectual dishonesty would be dishonest.  Choosing to believe he would do things differently because he says he would run a different kind of politics is, I believe, willful blindness, when he's already proven that theory wrong in the way he's run his campaign(s).  

by ChargedFan 2008-05-25 11:28AM | 0 recs

hit post instead of preview.

To continue:

I think it's acceptable to reference historical fact, including RFK et al -- but that context matters when speaking of literal facts, far more than when employing metaphorical rhetoric.

It was in poor taste to juxtapose her rationale for staying in the race with an implied reference to the possibility of an assassination rendering her viable again. Poor taste. Not a grave sin, not an egregious error in judgement -- UNLESS, of course, that's exactly what she meant to say without actually using those words. And that's damned sure what it sounded like to a lot of people.

If it WAS a mere error in judgement, then the cacophony of outrage is misplaced. If it WAS, however, a deliberately chosen example, then there hasn't been ENOUGH outrage.

I think there's a third option, however: I'm beginning to think she IS thinking along the lines of assassination, and that her subconscious clinging to that accidentally broke free and made it into her actual speech. It was a mistake, not because she didn't think through the ramifications, but because she said it at all when she only meant to think it.

Whew. Convoluted, ain't it? And really, what a waste of energy this has turned out to be for all of us; the damned race is over, Obama gets the nomination barring assassination or videotape of him eating a dead gay baby whale -- and all this sound and fury serves no one in the end but the Republicans, and certainly damages not only the Democratic Party and its nominee and downticket candidates, but most of all Clinton herself. She has probably sunk to a nadir too low from which to climb back.

by Maryscott OConnor 2008-05-25 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Shit

hahaha, well I've had similar things happen to me (and just had one post where I obviously should have previewed first, but didn't), so I empathize with that.  

Hmmm, and since I was busy responding to your first post, and did so before seeing your "addendum," let me reply separately here.  

I definitely agree with "context" mattering--another fact which many in the media employ by taking things out of context (sometimes perhaps innocently so, but other times to deliberately try to misrepresent a situation).    

And in this case, I think it would have been far more damaging, and yes even unacceptable, had the RFK assassination been the only thing mentioned.  But it was not--it was one example of two given that did seem to me to be more about the dates rather than the events.  And you go on to mention very valid statements...and if we really wanted to further dissect it, we could probably come up with fourth and fifth options as well.  I guess the bottom line is, we'll never really know what was going on in her mind when the statement was made--those who want to find a problem with it will, and those who don't won't.  I honestly had seen/heard the statement before all the uproar and didn't think twice about it.  Once the uproar started, I stepped back and realized I could see how that statement could have been taken different ways...but I'll also note that I believe the flames of uproar have been greatly flamed by the commentators who chose to interpret it negatively and make it more of an issue than it should be.  

And, I couldn't agree with you more on the waste of energy this has turned out to be for all of us (although I can't yet agree that the race is over...although I do think this partiular comment has unfortunately been hurtful...and I'm sure I heard somewhere someone has a tape of him eating a dead gay baby whale!  hehe, and yes that was a pure joke that I hope can't be miscontrued as anything other than an attempt at a friendlier reply to one of your comments).  Every time I come on this site, I swear to myself I'm not going to get caught up in the hoopla and only address the "true issues"...and yet here I sit again, some 3 1/2 hours after I first came on, doing exactly that.  I'd like to think that most of what I've taken time to comment on might "make a difference," but truthfully if I looked back over all comments, I'm sure some could definitely be deemed not to make a difference at all.

So here's to not wasting our energy on nonconsequential things!  Cheers!

by ChargedFan 2008-05-25 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann: Much Ado About Something

Keith Olbermann is a rodent's posterior.

by optimisticBoy 2008-05-24 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann: Much Ado About Something

I am sorry but KO is really no different that Bill O'Railey.  They are both two nut jobs who only care about their own self promotion.  I wouldnt let KO babysit my child.


by giusd 2008-05-24 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann: Much Ado About Something

well, far be it from me to give parenting tips, but leaving your child a lone with any of the chattering classes may not be a good idea...

KO is certainly different than Bill-O.  O'Reilly gets himself worked into a lather and then attempts to find facts to support his argument.  Do you remember the "we can't find any homeless vets, so they must not exist Senator Edwards" rant...?  KO gets worked up in a lather usually about facts that have gotten ignored.  Hence why he remains one of the few to take shots at President Bush...

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-24 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann: Much Ado About Something

Olbermann, our own little Howard Beale, though he's  all about the posturing and the ratings. So I say, when Keith's on, TURN OFF YOUR TVS and say I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.

by NY Writer 2008-05-24 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann: Much Ado About Something

But, as I diaried yesterday, he's a total hypocrite.

This Chicago Tribune article details death wishes toward Hillary from the MSM.

From the article:

On CNN, pundit Alex Castellanos said democrats must realize that "it's time to take the family dog to the vet." Matthews' MSNBC colleague Keith Olbermann expressed the hope that "somebody will take her into a room--and only he comes out." CNN's Jack Cafferty gleefully floated the specter of Clinton being run over by a flatbed truck. ifestyle/chi-fempower-0518may18,0,433371 4.column

Now...Olbermann apologized, saying...he meant a superdelegate would go in a room and she would withdraw from the race, that's what he meant. Yeah right. It's clearly a mafia-reminiscent violent scenario. Acceptable joke to make about a woman.

So Keith's outrage over Hillary was a joke. Not to mention that if you listened to the whole interview, she wasn't being malicious. To those of us over 40, the RFK assassination is linked to "June," as the MLK was linked to "April." It was a thoughtless thing to say, but that's about it.  

Finally, there were two notable reactions to her RFK comment. One from the editor who did the interview. One from RFK Jr,, RFK's son.

1. The statement from Argus Leader, the South Dakota Newspaper where Hillary Clinton made those remarks: "The context of the question and answer with Sen. Clinton was whether her continued candidacy jeopardized party unity this close to the Democratic convention. Her reference to Mr. Kennedy's assassination appeared to focus on the time line of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself"

2. This evening Robert Kennedy Jr. cautioned folks not to be offended at Clinton's mention of his father's assassination when discussing why she was staying in the race and how there was precedent for the primaries lasting until June. In a statement, Kennedy Jr. said: "It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June. I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband's 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June. I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense." 2008/05/rfk-jr-says-no.html

by NY Writer 2008-05-24 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann: Much Ado About Something

Do you happen to know the timeing of those two reactions, vis-a-vis the KO diatribe? Also, I understand Obama also said people should not overreact. Did KO manage to register his outrage before everyone who could possibly have been legitimately offended stated that they weren't? Now that they have, does he plan to adjust his outrage level?

by itsthemedia 2008-05-24 11:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann: Much Ado About Something

I'm not certain of the timing of Argus's comment, although I didn't hear of it until after KO's show in my intermittent watching of the "news shows" (and I use that term hesitantly because as many have stated even herein, what generally passes for a news show has often become nothing but a soapbox for talking heads to try to pass off their biased views as the news rather than the news itself).  But Bobby Kennedy's statement was being quoted on some of the shows prior to KO's--so that statement at least was seemingly out there before KO went on the air.  And I believe Barack's campaign's statement was out there as well, but I could be mistaken on that.  

by ChargedFan 2008-05-25 07:56AM | 0 recs
When are you folks going to wake up and realize

that we do not have an independent, give-me-the-facts media anymore? Of course, they want to talk about Hillary said this and Obama did that because they don't want to cover the medical records of McCain and the tax returns of his wife.

They literally pulled the wool over our eyes. While we were busy shouting like kids, the battleship aircraft carrier of that size of Montana parked just around the corner and we didn't notice.  

Look, I watched news today with an electronic stopwatch in my hand. I watched CNN, MSBC, Foxnew for about 5 hours in a row just to see how many minutes they would allocate to Cindy McCain tax returns (which are a fucking joke by the way). Can you guess? In 5 hours folks, all these cable news channels combined allocated less than 2 minutes, 88 seconds exactly. Can you believe that?

Do you remember how many minutes they allocated to Obama's tax returns? Do you remember how many minutes they allocated to Clinton's tax returns? I didn't keep track of the time, but i am sure as hell that they allocated more than 2 minutes.

And you tell me Olbermann is a great journalist? He does not know what journalism is even if it fucked him in the ass, and so Russert, and all the CBS and ABC and NBC and all the cable channels journalists combined. Wake up folks. We don't have media anymore.

There are still 4 or 5 daily newspapers that are quite good (i am not talking about the editorial pages) and have journalists who really do some real reporting; that is asking questions, sticking to the facts, trying to get more facts to back up their stories, getting people on the record and keeping their opinions to themselves. I was in middle school when the Watergate story broke and until this day i don't know the political affiliation of Bernstein and Woodward. Quite frankly, it really didn't matter that much since they were doing their job.  

by likelihood zero 2008-05-24 08:58PM | 0 recs
LITERALLY pulled the wool over our eyes?

Odd... I never felt a thing.
by Maryscott OConnor 2008-05-24 08:59PM | 0 recs
Re: LITERALLY pulled the wool over our eyes?

Are you trying to make LZ feel sheepish?

by itsthemedia 2008-05-24 11:34PM | 0 recs
But seriously...

First, I never said Olbermann is a great "journalist." I have, at times, called him a polemicist, an advocate for truth and so on -- but not a journalist.

Second... I totally agree with you about the McCain thing -- EXCEPT for the indisputable fact that OLBERMANN actually HAS been exposing and commenting on McCain and his myriad lies and scandals.

by Maryscott OConnor 2008-05-24 09:02PM | 0 recs
Are we that far gone that...

we can't even mention the fact that RFK WAS assassinated?

Should Clinton have just stated that he won the California primary in June without mention of the defining event?  Would not that be silly?

Overall, in an attempt to win against Fox, NBC has become like Fox.  Olbermann is now over the top, more like O'Reilly than ever.

The whole process is stupider than ever before.  Who cares about the issues.  The infotainment is all that matters now.

And I used to think that my side was actually smarter.  But just like we are sold soap, cars, drugs, now we are sold presidents, and the media, that promoted Bush and Iraq, promotes another who is acceptable to the corporate powers.

by citizen53 2008-05-24 09:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Keith Olbermann: Much Ado About Something

> Clinton could have diffused the situation considerably had she quickly and simply apologised

Do you really think so? I don't. I have seen this sort of outrage storm many times before - usually from the right wingers, who are very good at it - and I can't recall when I have ever seen one diffused by a mere apology. KO was not going to be denied his chance to froth for ratings, no matter what Clinton said to try to calm the waters.

by itsthemedia 2008-05-24 11:41PM | 0 recs
I ought to have added...

Sincerely -- but that would have made it an even more improbable action...

: )

by Maryscott OConnor 2008-05-25 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: I ought to have added...

You seem to be stating that you don't think Clinton's apology was sincere, or that you don't think she is capable of a sincere apology. It is clear that your judgement of these matters is clouded by your antipathy for her.

by itsthemedia 2008-05-26 03:56PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads