Let’s Play Olbermann Oddball!
By mw | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary, Partisan Hacks
Image credit - ripped from Yikes!
Friday on the MSNBC show Countdown Obama Infomercial with Keith Olbermann, Keith apparently had to scramble back into the studio for a “Breaking News” story - An interview with Barack Obama responding to widespread coverage of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s inflammatory sermons. The interview video is linked here.
Barack Obama responded directly to Olbermann’s questions with thoughtful, intelligent answers, as we’ve come to expect from the Senator. More interesting was the context of the interview and the analysis between Keith Olbermann and Jonathan Alter before and after.
Now, as I’ve said in comments to Justin’s post, I think the hyperbolic rhetoric in the coverage of both Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s sermons and Geraldine Ferraro’s comments were way overblown by the media and bloggers. The amusing context for this interview, was watching Keith Olbermann hoisted on his own petard. Two days before, Olbermann was fanning the flames with his “Special Comment” to and about Hillary Clinton, saying “Clinton’s tepid response to Ferraro is shameful…You must reject and denounce Geraldine Ferraro.” Geraldine Ferraro is a public figure with a personal relationship to Clinton, and a supporter who was peripherally associated with her campaign. Jeremiah Wright is a public figure with a personal relationship to Obama, and a supporter who was peripherally associated with his campaign. Hence the need for a hastily arranged “Breaking News” interview with Obama to follow up the anti-Clinton screed.
Olbermann had quite a different speaking tone when asking Obama whether he would denounce Reverend Wright, as when he was demanding that Clinton denounce Ferraro. Obama replies, quite reasonably, that he will denounce the words but not the man. The trademark Olbermann high dudgeon is noticeably absent. Absent also is the finger wagging insistence that Obama “must reject and denounce Reverend Wright”. Why the difference? Well… Keith was addressing a male candidate about a male’s offensive comments on Friday, but was addressing a female candidate about a female’s offensive comments on Wednesday. Was that the reason? You tell me.
Then Olbermann and Jonathan Alter (who recently wrote two columns advising Clinton to quit the campaign) sheepishly analyze what has just transpired. Maybe it is my imagination, but when I watch this sequence I see two embarrassed journalists fully cognizant of the discrepancy in the coverage of these two candidates and perhaps, finally recognizing that Obama is a politician just like Clinton - different only in degree and not in kind. If these two are not embarrassed about the difference in the way they have been covering Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton - they should be. Particularly Olbermann.
Compare and contrast that Friday interview with Wednesday’s “Special Comment”, excerpted here:
“To Sen. Clinton’s supporters, to her admirers, to her friends for whom she is first choice, and to her friends for whom she is second choice, she is still letting herself be perceived as standing next to, and standing by, racial divisiveness and blindness… Somebody tells her that simply disagreeing with and rejecting the remarks is sufficient. And that she should then call them “regrettable,” a word that should make any Democrat retch And that she should then try to twist them, first into some pox-on-both-your-houses plea to “stick to the issues,” and then to let her campaign manager try to bend them beyond all recognition, into Sen. Obama’s fault. And thus these advisers give Congresswoman Ferraro nearly a week in which to send Sen. Clinton’s campaign back into the vocabulary … of David Duke.”
There is much that was truly odd about this particular “Special Comment”, but nothing was stranger than Olbermann’s peculiar choice to attack “Clinton’s advisers” for Hillary Clinton’s statements. Just think about this for a minute. Hillary Clinton makes statements about Obama, or his staff and supporters, or her own staff and supporters, or the campaign in general or whatever. Olbermann becomes incensed by the statements as only Keith Olbermann can get, and then he attacks “Clinton’s advisers” for the statements she has made. Why the advisers? Why not Clinton? What is the rationale behind that? I can think of only three reasons why Keith Olbermann would choose to formulate his very carefully and precisely worded “Special Comment” in that peculiar way.
1) Olbermann believes Hillary Clinton is too stupid or incompetent to think for herself, speak for herself, direct her own campaign, or formulate her own opinions. - or -
2) Olberman thinks women in general are incapable of formulating their own opinons, positions, and/or direct their campaign without the help of a (presumably male) staff. - or -
3) Olbermann is afraid to confront Hillary Clinton directly and instead chooses to make a dishonest and disingenuous indirect attack on her “advisers” for her statements and her positions.
I cannot think of another reason to structure his presentation like this. If anyone else has a plausible reason, I’m all ears. Let me know in the comments. In the meantime, I was inspired to create my first ever DWSUWF poll which you can find on the left sidebar of my blog, should you wish to weigh in on why Olbermann delivered his “Special Attack” on Hillary Clinton by attacking her advisers. Does he think she is stupid?; Is he a sexist?; - or - Is he just afraid of Hillary? You decide.
There was another interesting bit of rhetorical dissembling in the conversation between Olbermann and Eugene Robinson in the same show:
OLBERMANN: “… Does this end this? Or does it just sort of freeze it in a kind of nebulous zone that a lot of events in the Clinton campaign have been mired, the sort of nasty stuff they didn‘t say but somebody said for them?”
ROBINSON: “That does seem to have been the pattern, doesn‘t it? You know, I have a feeling this could go on for a few more days and hopes it faded out, but who knows. I mean, where do you start with this story, Keith?You know, first of all, Geraldine Ferraro says, you know, she‘s been called a racist and Bill Clinton was called a racist. Nobody calls her a racist. Nobody called Bill Clinton a racist.What was said is that what she‘s—you know, the sentiments she expressed, what she said was arguably a racist thing to say. But that‘s about action, that‘s about words. It‘s not about her essence or her being.”
You got that? Keith and Eugene are not calling Geraldine Ferarro a racist. Not at all. They are only explaining that Geraldine Ferraro says racist things. That does not make her a racist. Truly, an almost Clintonesque parsing of the language.
Fair enough. Permit me to clarify, so there is no confusion about the point of this post. Keith Olbermann is not an Obama cheerleader and a sexist pig.
He just talks like one.
X-post excerpted from and continued at Divided We Stand United We Fall
This entry was posted on Saturday, March 15th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary, Partisan Hacks. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
[...] backers recognize Olbermann for hypocritical and sanctimonious douchebaggery. Posted by Dan Collins @ 1:20 pm | Trackback Share [...]
March 15th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Exactly what I have been thinking. O.K should apologize to Hillary.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
“Let’s Play Olbermann Oddball!”
Ok, “Twenty-five bucks says he eats it.”
March 15th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Ferrarro’s comments were specific criticism of clinton’s opponent in the context of the campaign, whereas Wright’s sermons were (I think) made before the campaign even started, and weren’t supportive of barack or critical of hillary? One might argue that clinton may benefit from ferraro’s remarks, in a way that she should denounce rather than accept, whereas I don’t see anyone claiming that barack could benefit from wright’s.
March 15th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
mdgeorge - You missed one of the videos of Wright giving a sermon in the last few months directly comparing Barack and Hillary in a racial framework. I am not promoting these videos - but the sermon you missed is here. Again, Obama has denounced Wright’s words and that is good enough for me. My post is about Olbermann and his coverage, not Obama and Wright.
March 15th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Thanks for the link and for your analysis.
BAC
March 15th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
mw,
Thanks for addressing what has to be one of the most embarrassing interludes in “journalistic” hypocricy I have ever had the misfortune to witness.
I was a big fan of Olbermann until his second or third “Specious Comment” revealed him to be just another verbose bully infatuated with the sound of his own ire.
I do not understand how he will come back from this blatant piece of hackery, but will once more tune in to see if he is man or journalist enough to address it.
Ever since the day after his overwrought “apology” for David Shuster, Olbermann seems to have licensed himself as a Hillary Clinton character assassin.
I occasionally post on a few of the formerly progressive blogs, and now that he has so shamelessly joined the Obama campaign, my signature line is:
Keith Olbermann: If you truly revere Edward R. Murrow, it’s time to change your sign-off from “Good Night and Good Luck” to “Fired Up and Ready to Go!”
March 15th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
When Obama is finally and totally unmasked and humilated (hopefully before he does the same to all Democrats), moderate Dems need to hold certain people accountable. People like Olbermann (who is NO Edward R. Murrow), Oprah, Randi Rhodes, Rachel Maddow, and oh so many who we were led to believe wanted a sane and responsible America.
Hillary, if elected, should begin a campaign to move 2 people out of their lofty chairs: Olbermann and Ted (Leave All Women Behind) Kennedy.
March 15th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Time to go wash all the estrogen off me that just shot out of my monitor. Another worthless feminist blogger trying to stump for Hillary with a pathetic attack. The very fact that you can’t see the diminutive nature of Ferraro’s comment implies you are blinded by your own prejudices. This article is a complete and utter failure.
March 15th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Friday, March 14, 2008
Obama X
Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. was supposed to speak at Obama’s Feb. 10 presidential announcement. After tapes of the preacher’s anti-America sermons were widely disseminated, Obama changed his mind.
And, AFTER the story broke, Obama made numerous statements distancing himself from Wright’s offensive political commentary (Wright is not a big fan of America, especially white America). Requests for an interviews with Wright were referred to the Obama campaign. WHAT THE HECK???? How are you distancing yourself from this nut, when your campaign is acting as his freakin’ publicist?
An Obama spokesman referred to Wright as “media shy.” Now that one big fat lie. The guy was doing live webcasts of his “anti-white ‘god damn America’ and quit complaining about 9/11 you deserved it” rants. You could not watch one sermon and say with a straight face that Wright is shy about anything.
I will leave it to another post to tell about how Obama had a conversation with Wild Man Wright back in the FALL where they both agreed that Obama would have to distance himself from Rev. Wright if he was competitive in the primaries. Just politics as usual. Obama X for President?
I always had a feeling Obama’s holier than art thou “I am a new breed of Honest Politician”(reminds me of the pedestal that Eliot built) was an act, now I am sure about it. Beware of the Politician who tells you he is different.
Let’s see whether the media gives Obama a free pass because they are afraid to broach the topic of a black man’s possible racism. If Hillary attended a Church for decades and had a close personal relationship with a preacher who made similar racist comments, the media would tie her to a spit, light the fire, hold hands and sing camp songs as she roasted live on network TV.
Posted by One Angry Democrat at 8:56 PM 0 comments
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Obama, I call B.S.
Obama, in response to being called out on his close, personal friend Rev. Wright’s race baiting, said, “the forces of division” over race are intruding into the Democratic presidential nomination contest. Yo, Barack, what are you saying??? It is your close personal friend, pastor and member of your campaign staff who is “the force of division.” Are you playing the “race card” to divert attention from yourself?
“We have to come together,” Obama said. OMG. Hypocrite. Disingenuous. LOL. If you wanted to “come together” maybe you should have disavowed Rev. Wright years ago, as opposed to now when it suspiciously appears you are only doing it (”insincere” is the word that comes to mind) to get yourself elected President. And quit pretending you did not know this guys hateful rhetoric. You had a conversation months ago with Wright himself about “distancing” because you knew this would become an issue. YOU KNEW. YOU KNEW. Stop pretending like this is news to you.
“If all I knew were those statements I saw on television, I would be shocked,” Obama said. I guess we just take your word on it that Wright is a lover, not a race baiter. I look forward to the evidence I know will come of you sitting front and center for Rev. Wright spewing a little hate from the pulpit. You picked this guy to work for your campaign and that speaks volumes about you Obama X.
Obama: “The forces of division have begun to raise their ugly head again,” Obama said. Are you actually putting the blame somewhere other than where it belongs, ON YOU and your race baiting buddy?
Obama: “It reminds me: We’ve got a tragic history when it comes to race in this country. A lot of pent-up anger and mistrust and bitterness. This country wants to move beyond these kinds of things.” B.S. Barack Obama. I call B.S. If you truly believed what you said, you wouldn’t have anything to do with Rev. McHate.
What do you think a white American should think when watching their potential U.S. President’s closet spiritual adviser directing hate and anger at white America? You are just a closet divider who lacks the guts to tell us what you really think.
Posted by One Angry Democrat at 6:05 PM
March 15th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
“Time to go wash all the estrogen off me that just shot out of my monitor.”
Is it the estrogen, or the lack of testosterone that compels you to make such a puerile, misogynistic statement?
“Another worthless feminist blogger trying to stump for Hillary with a pathetic attack. The very fact that you can’t see the diminutive nature of Ferraro’s comment implies you are blinded by your own prejudices.”
I believe the gist of the article was about Olbermann’s hypocrisy and blatant bias. That point must have eluded you as you cowered behind your monitor.
“This article is a complete and utter failure.”
By your lack of ability to articulate your points in a mature manner, there’s no doubt you can empathize with failure.
March 15th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
To the understandably anonymous “Whocares”,
I’m afraid you missed it my misogynist friend. This is a picture of me with some new friends on a holiday in West Africa last fall. So the source of any estrogen in your immediate neighborhood, came from your side of the monitor. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
To LP and AngryDemocrat,
Let me be clear about my position. I have no problem with Obama. I think he would make a fine President and a better vice-president. I do think Clinton would make a better President right now, and part of the reason is that Clinton is a package deal with a guy who actually was Commander In Chief for eight years. That is a simple fact, whether anyone wants to acknowledge it or not. I happen to think it is great thing, that when that call comes in at 3 AM, and if Hillary is so inclined, she can find Bill wandering around in his bathrobe looking for cigars or something and get a second opinion. I sure wish Bush43 had used his family connection to a previous Commander In Chief, and got a second opinion from Bush41 before he decided to invest a trillion dollars of our treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives and limbs in Iraq. But I digress.
This post is not about Obama, Clinton, Ferraro, or Wright. It is a hypocrisy test for for Obama and Clinton supporters. The Ferraro and Wright situation is so similar, that if you insist on treating them differently, you are either a hypocrite or sexist. As it turns out Olbermann is both.
March 15th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
MW, I understand that you hold that KO is hypocritical because he strongly denounced Clinton’s response to Ferraro, but did not denounce Obama’s response to Wright. I don’t understand what you would expect KO to do? BO came to his show and denounced Wright’s comments right in front of his face. BO did exactly what KO wanted Hillary to do: act quickly before it can fester. Would you want KO to denounce him for waiting this long to drop Wright from his campaign? That might be a valid criticism, so you should be clear about that point. Still, if Clinton had come onto his show to repudiate Ferraro’s comment, would he have still made his special comment? KO warned the day before he would make the comment. If HRC and her campaign knew about it, they would have had enough time to preempt it.
Okay, then you claim that KO is sexist. There is a high probability, but I would be careful about using this as an ad hominem attack. Just because he is sexist, doesn’t itself mean that he is wrong. But it might mean that he is unfair. So KO might believe HRC is too stupid to speak for herself, etc… but wasn’t the problem that Ferraro made comments as part of the campaign, and HRC was not immediately clear about whether those comments represented the views of her campaign? Plus, he clearly asks her to take back the reigns of the campaign, so he indicates that he might believe she can do this. Next, KO might believe that because HRC is a woman, she cannot manage her own campaign without her male staff. I don’t see any indication that he assumes the staff are all male. There are many females as well. And finally, KO might be afraid of confronting Hillary Clinton directly. Well, again, he criticizes her for not taking back the reins, and the issue began with the surrogate (Ferraro), and then later with her lack of response to it, in his view. He spreads the criticism around.
I know from personal experience as a minority (not black) how unfair people can be to you, and judge you on things you have no control over. However, it’s all too easy for us to go and blame them when we ourselves are actually at fault. Yes, if there is sexism, HRC has to deal with it, now and later if she wins. It isn’t fair. But do you go about it by guilt tripping people into giving you a chance, or do you work as hard as you can and try to prove them wrong. From my experience, the former never works, and even when you get them to, you always pay for it later. Nevertheless, given that they both have gotten this far, despite all the racism/sexism, there’s hope for the later.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Although Rev. Wrights comments are appalling, inflammatory and utterly ridiculous – ridiculous mostly because if you’re a preacher of the “Good” word, all that should be coming out of your mouth from your pulpit should be “good” words – and because the location where he delivered his “sermon” was the absolute wrong place to utter them… as a white male, I feel free to say that some of his commentary on American foreign policy, treatment of minorities and places our government has dropped bombs, etc… uh… I kinda agree with him. Many black people in America have a different perspective on America’s history than whites (remember the song by the band “Living Colour” back in the 90s – “Which Way to America”?). The out and out attack on Hillary and Bill Clinton was unfair, unkind, unloving, hateful, unnecessary and unwarranted and I personally condemn and condone them, as a white Christian male.
But, in fact, before Barack and Michelle became well-to-do African-Americans, they didn’t have all that much money. The earned their money, but they didn’t “come from” money. So compared to Michelle and Barack, yeah Hillary does come from the privileged white establishment. That’s a fact. It’s not her fault that she does because she was born into it. But compared to the majority of underclass black people in society (essentially, that which excludes those born into wealthy black families), she was born into a better position. So, much of what Rev. Wright was expressing was frustration and many blacks and minorities feel this frustration every day, very strongly. And at times, many whites have been known to utter that they hate what our government has done in our name. We may love our country – our music, our geography, or constitution, our ability to grow and evolve, our multicultural societies, our theater and films and artists, our cities, our unique culture and sense of humor – but we may hate the fact that our government has: gotten cozy in the past with despicable characters (such as Saddam Hussein) and then turned around and called them our enemy, interned Japanese Americans during World War II, condoned slavery and the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela, waged stupid wars in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, etc. So, yeah, sometimes white Americans can, out of frustration, say we “hate” America too… but we probably mean what our government is doing in our name and not what we love about America – specifically our constitution, our freedom, the civil rights movement, and our general original philosophy, etc.
HOWEVER, wrong place, wrong time and way too hateful… and I’m talking directly to you, Rev. Wright! You need to pay closer attention to Jesus’ teachings, or get some anger management courses. What you said, Rev Wright, and the way you said it, and the location you chose to utter your hateful rhetoric makes your entire career truly deplorable – even though SOME OF your observations on the American government’s past “sins” (especially the treatment of black people) are SOMEWHAT on point. But Rev. Wright, you are not a political organizer or member of the Black Panther Party. You are a preacher in a “Christian” church. So your rhetoric is both alarming, hateful, racist and inexcusable – from a Christian perspective because of the time and place in which you uttered your multitude of ghastly rants. AND YOU DID YOUR BUDDY BARACK SUCH AN ASTOUNDING DISERVICE THAT COULD END UP COSTING HIM THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION – YOU OLD MORON!!!
All that being said… the difference between the Rev. Wright situation and Geraldine Ferraro’s commentary in relationship to Keith Olberman are as follows:
1) Ferraro knew exactly what she was doing – since she is a politician – when she made those statements. She was uttering a sentiment that the Clinton camp wants to place in voter’s minds but couldn’t utter for fear of looking, well, racist. Ferraro is removed just enough from Ground Zero in the Clinton Camp and is a historical figure since she’s the first woman to even come close to winning the White House. Therefore, she was the perfect “fighter” and counter-point to Obama to raise the question of his legitimacy to be the front runner in this race. Her words were strategic and deliberate to raise doubts about Obama, therefore diminishing him and making him look like nothing more than a “quota” candidate – while also referencing herself as the original “quota” candidate; thus doing herself a great disservice in the process (some of us believe she was actually the one most qualified person for the job of V.P. at the time regardless of the fact that she was a woman. Thanks for blowing that assessment for us, Ms. Ferraro!).
2) Olberman was reacting after what he perceived to be Senator Clinton’s slow response to Congresswoman Ferraro’s comments. The difference between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama’s response was that Sen. Obama made the rounds and all the 24 hour channels (including FOX, for the love of God!) to show his face and publically distance himself to a man that he called a spiritual mentor. This was probably something very difficult and embarrassing for Sen. Obama to do. But he felt it was the right thing to do, and of course the most politically imperative. Sen. Clinton decided to not go on any shows nor to publically denounce Geraldine’s Ferraro comments until the heat got way, way too hot to handle for her camp. The reason I personally feel she didn’t jump to this course of action is because she agrees with Ms. Ferraro’s assessment and offered her up to make the statement. But just for the sake of argument, let’s say she didn’t offer her up to make the statement, she certainly didn’t discourage it because it worked in her favor. Nothing Rev. Wright said or the way he said it played into Barack Obama’s favor. His overall approach to public speaking is completely opposite of everything Barack Obama stands for. He went on Olberman’s show to state how against Rev. Wright’s comments he is and express that he wanted to distance himself from the man and his rhetoric. Had Sen. Clinton done the same, I think Mr. Olberman would have welcomed her on his show and given her the platform to repudiate Geraldine Ferraro’s comments.
I don’t think that Olberman is sexist. I think Mr. Olberman is opposed to the kind of politics that pits one Democrat against another in such a divisive way. Olberman is, after all, a Democrat. He wants a Democrat to defeat a Republican in the general election. If he’s being accused of being against Hillary Clinton because she is a woman and Barack Obama is a man, then what that does is take the pressure off of Sen. Clinton from using the fear tactics she’s been employing and playing the kind of dirty politics that the Republicans will use to try and discredit Sen. Obama. It appeared to me that is what Olberman was reacting to – not that Hillary Clinton is a woman and Barack Obama is a man, and therefore he will go soft on Barack Obama. Rev. Wright did enough damage to Barack Obama to torpedo his bid for the presidency. Olberman didn’t really need to jump on the bandwagon.
Let me repeat this factoid for the original blogger who is slamming Olberman: HE’S A DEMOCRAT! Olberman is going to defend the Democrat who is acting least like a Republican – AND, the one who isn’t trying to destroy the other Democrat while at the same time taking down the entire party with her! AND, Rev Wright’s comments will hurt Barack unintentionally and that’s not Barack’s fault! Meanwhile, Ferraro’s comments will hurt Barack intentionally and Clinton would not condemn her until forced to – THAT’S WHY OLBERMAN WAS WAGGING HIS FINGER AT HER!!!
You can’t see that, original blogger? You think that Olberman is being sexist because he gave Barack a chance to come on and distance himself from statements a man made that would basically hurt him? How much of a death wish do you think Barack has? Barack actually wants to win this thing! That’s why he went on Olberman to say – I DON’T AGREE WITH THIS CRAZY OLD BASTARD!!! Basically, Barack was saying: “Uncle Wright, I’m kinda done with you! You can retire now and give it a rest!” And then he booted him out of his campaign! Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, didn’t ask Geraldine to go anywhere because she knows Geraldine helped her out a great deal. That’s why Geraldine removed herself, ‘cause Hillary wasn’t gonna do it.
So is it unfair for Olberman to point this out because Hillary is a woman? Is he, a diehard Democrat, wrong in going after the Democrat who is being the most unfair to the other Democrat? Why is it unfair of Olberman to change his tone with Barack when Barack is the one who has the most to lose in both instances and is the one who had the decency and integrity to go on his show? Hillary has the most to gain from both Ferraro’s comments and Rev. Wright’s insane ramblings. Olberman is right to be angry at both Ferraro and Wright. He may be going a little over board on wagging the finger at Clinton. But I think he’d probably wag his finger at former President Bill Clinton just as aggressively, and last time I checked, Bill is very much a male.
So, in conclusion original blogger… YOU’RE WRONG! Olberman may be a smug, pompous, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, one-sided, biased, unbalanced, unapologetically Democratic, liberal elitist ass at times. But he’s not necessarily a sexist one. He just doesn’t like Republicans… and at this point, he thinks Hillary Clinton is acting like one. If Hillary Clinton were a man, he’d probably slam him/her just as hard. Got it!
Now, can’t we all just hug and make up?
March 16th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Antidense,
The difference is that KO made a big issue about denouncing the person and not just the words with Clinton. In fact it is his headline link to the “special Comment” on the countdown website - “You must reject and denounce Geraldine Ferraro” Not her words - Ferraro herself. Then he let Obama slide on this exact question. As I indicated in the post, I think Obama’s response was right and KO was wrong in his over the top screed against Clinton (I mean her “advisers”) - that still leaves KO with in a “unbalanced”, unsupportable and hypocritical posture. We’ll see if he changes it.
Biko,
Whew - I think this is a first. I don’t think anyone has ever posted a comment reply longer than my original post. That said, I appreciate getting such a thoughtful and considered reply. But, you might not be surprised to learn that I disagree. I have a much simpler view of Olbermann’s asymmetric attack - He, like you, wants Obama to win. So he, like you, then arbitrarily decides that Obama is the “real” democrat and Clinton is a republican - which is as ad hominem as you can get in the Democratic party. He, like you, then feels free to trash Clinton, because, after all, she’s not a real Democrat. Like I said, I disagree. But I’ll concede one point, maybe he is not a sexist, maybe he is just a hypocrite.
Ok, we can hug and make up. Lets work together to get Obama to do the right thing, step aside and take the VP slot, so we can get the Democratic Party unified again. I am sure I can count on you.
March 16th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Sorry the post was so long. But I just want to clarify that I don’t think or care whether Barack Obama is more of a Democrat than Hillary Clinton. I am a fierce Independent who was leaning towards McCain before I “met” Barack Obama. I was not a member of the Democratic Party until just recently when I switched over to vote in the Democratic primary in Florida (mostly just as a symbolic gesture to show support for Sen. Obama).
What I was stating was that Olbermann was “outraged” (although perhaps a little too condescendingly – I will give you that) at Hillary for acting, in his eyes (although I can’t really speak FOR him) more like a Republican than he would like her to be acting (if that makes any sense?). I see what you’re saying about Olbermann – in most instances, he can be unbearable! But I think the problem is: if you reduce him to just being a sexist male pig, then you miss an opportunity to see his larger point which is: he probably – as an initial Hillary Clinton supporter – (and I am making an assumption that, before this race began, he had nothing but glowing praise for Sen. Clinton… although I’m not sure about this because I only started watching his program AFTER his Katrina rant a few years back, and not very consistently until just recently) – that he is less and less enamored with her as the process goes along.
He could very well, most definitely be a hypocrite – that I will concede. I do think Hillary is a real Democrat and I think Barack is a real Democrat as well. But I do think Olbermann is saying (and again, I can’t really speak FOR him) that Clinton is acting the way a Republican would act when attacking Barack Obama.
It is not my intention to slam Hillary Clinton personally. I am deeply troubled by the remarks of Rev. Wright – much more so than the remarks of Geraldine Ferraro, for sure (I feel her remarks aren’t even in the same ball park). It is not my intention to be a shill for Keith Olbermann nor for Barack Obama for that matter nor is it my intention to be disrespectful towards an accomplished and intelligent woman like Sen. Hillary Clinton in any way.
But I find it curious why you would ask the frontrunner to step aside and take the V.P. spot? It kind of defies logic. I am – (and please keep in mind – I was not a Dodd or Biden or Guliani or Romney supporter either. My annoyance with Hillary Clinton is the same annoyance I feel towards these other politicians, who just so happen to be white males. I view her as a “classic”, nothing-new-to-offer politician REGARDLESS of her gender) – supporting Barack because I think he’s not business as usual. I actually feel somewhat passionately about SOME of Ron Paul’s views (though not the racist views expressed by someone via his newsletter) and Nader’s views (as I voted for Nader twice already… yeah, I’m the one!) and even Huckabees views (although certainly not his religious ones, for sure) because I think their approach to politics is totally different than the pack. As an Independent: I lump Sen. Clinton in with Sen. Biden, Sen. Dodd and Gov. Romney (although I do have a tremendous amount of respect for Sen. Biden, Sen., Dodd and Sen. Clinton… and none at all for Gov. Romney who to me is a complete buffoon, like our current president Bush… perhaps nice guys, but DREADFUL politicians).
So here in lies the rub: I think you – as a Democrat – should consider VERY carefully what I’m about to express: I do not want to vote for a Democrat OR a Republican. But I am voting for Barack Obama, who happens to be a Democrat, and would consider even John McCain, who happens to be a Republican (and more and more every day, it appears, much to my dismay) because they aren’t the same old same old AND they can EFFECTIVELY reach across party lines (and what I like most about Barack is that he can do more than just reach across party line inside the Belt Way, but can also be a unifier for the larger population OUTSIDE of Washington – regardless of the rhetoric expressed by his ridiculous pastor; something I think Sen. McCain is actually lacking because, let’s face it, he’s really not that nice of a guy!).
I don’t care about unifying the Democratic party nor do I think it rational to ask the candidate in the lead to step down to the candidate who is trailing and then take the secondary role. That’s patently absurd. You – as a Democrat – need Independents like me to win in ‘08 and there are MANY of us out here who feel exactly the way I do – specifically about Sen. Clinton (and it has nothing to do with her being a woman). She may be a woman (and that’s definitely a plus in my book) – but to us, she’s the same old same old and not all that much different than the other “guys” she was running against. Barack is, at least in our eyes (and again, I really can’t speak for “other” Independents, so perhaps I should take that off the table and just say – I BELIEVE THAT Sen. Obama is:) different in so many ways and therefore much more appealing and that is why he has my support in ’08.
So please take that for what it’s worth… and I’ll take that hug now ;-).
March 17th, 2008 at 2:32 am
!@#$% dude, you’re long-winded. Get an editor and maybe not repeat the same long points four long times.
mk, the photo was priceless and the sexist was vanquished. ;-)
Olbermann et al who’ve gone into the tank based on their own wishes - worthless in their reporting / analyzing roles.
Temple.
March 17th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
TEMPLE
I’ll make my point a little shorter so you can understand it:
Your commentary is small, simple-minded and what makes this otherwise AMAZING country so frustrating to deal with at times.
Clear example. Someone presents some articulated points and you can’t hang with them because apparently they go way beyond your diminished attention span. So, you write some little comment with nothing of consequence as a counter? Maybe I made FOUR LONG POINTS because they required more than glib sarcasm.
Your comment — and so many other commentators like you doing drive-bys on the world wide web — say nothing, mean nothing, and add no value to any conversation. I may need an editor, but you desperately need an actual point of view – because without one, why do you bother writing anything in the first place.
(And don’t ever call me dude!)
March 17th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Well, I read some of Temple’s other blogs after positing the above comment and - turns out… Temple actually is a pretty smart “dude”. My knee jerk reaction was a little too extreme.
I apololgize… and won’t be too long winded on this one.
BIKO
March 19th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I used to watch Olbermann’s Countdown until I found out that his rhetorics are neither fair nor balanced. It seems that MSNBC is becoming almost like Obama’s mini campaign headquarter lately. Mathews the spitting mouth already lost his crdibility as a journalist and Olbermann who makes money downgrading O’reilly on a regular basis, is actually no better than Ann Coulter, O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh. Olbermann’s unfair rhetoric against Senator Clinton is despicable and for that it is fair to say that YOU ARE A WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD.
March 22nd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Olbermann has become both O’Reilly and Hannity all rolled into one for MSNBC. Objectivity? Just went out the window when he started to bash Hillary non-stop in the last several months. For someone supposedly in favor of a Dem win in November, he has taken the time to discredit her without shame, particularly that “special comments” event regarding Ferraro. Keith is so in love with the sound of his own voice he thinks he can now direct voters to his candidate of choice, Obama, because he deens it so! The race is not over, all votes are not in, and if MI and FL are discounted and the nomination “handed” to Obama the electorate will respond. Some of us will choose to sit this on out and the southern white male vote will got to St. McCain. There are many pundits who will live to regret this in the long run. Guaranteed.
March 22nd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
So you would vote for someone you know will vote against your economic interests, who will prolong needless overseas wars, hurting your country in the long run….simply because you want to get “even” with a TV commentator?
May 1st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
[...] few weeks ago, I compared Jeremiah Wright’s statements to some of Geraldine Ferarro’s controversial com…. Then I was focusing on the disparity of coverage by Obama campaign strategist Keith Olbermann who [...]
June 27th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
[...] few weeks ago I noted the glaring contrast between Keith Olbermann’s coverage of Clinton and Obama. In that post I compared the classic high dudgeon Keith Olbermann “Special Comment” [...]
July 16th, 2008 at 11:50 am
[...] big government Republicans under GWB, or the regularly scheduled Keith Olbermann and Jonathon Alter Obama Infomercial. Maddow’s broadcast on Monday was another case in [...]