Excellent.  Thank you for this.

Um, he played video of her making the comments, not on March 1st, but yesterday.  He wasn't relying on a twisting of words.

Jeez

Nope.  I'm forever done with him.

When do we get the chance to elect a new press?

He's a demagogic tool. We were all too caught up in our own Bush hate the past few years to notice. This should be an object lesson for us all.

Olbermann always said that he was neither liberal nor conservative, just telling the truth. And that always rang true.

But here is a case of clear bias (not surprising since he is around a bunch of misogynistic Clinton haters all day like Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson).  

Here, he is actually getting involved in a Democratic primary.

Let's just say, for argument's sake, that Hillary actually said that McCain would be a better President (note:  she didn't say that). Why would that, to an objective reporter, be a bad thing?

Would it be stupid politically?  Yes.

Would it be to the detriment of her party?  Yes.

But if you aren't a Democrat, but rather a supposed neutral observer, why would it be a bad thing for one candidate to say another would make a better President than your rival for the nomination? You shouldn't.   It would be newsworthy, but not evidence of being a bad person as he implied.

But Olbermann's response gives him up as a partisan Democrat because of the perpsective from which he responded.  And that will compromise his future efforts to hold Republicans accountable, to condemn them from a position of moral authority (which is a shame, because we need Olbermann playing that role, since no one else will).  

I happen to be kind of upset that Hillary is saying things about McCain that can be construed as positive.  But I also understand the context and wouldn't criticize her without that context (as KO did) nor could any reasonable person twist her words to say that she is arguing McCain would be a better President.   Really a shame that Olbermann decided to go irresponsible on this one.

Keith Olbermann has done more to expose the corruption and incompetence of the Bush Administration than anyone on TV.

Anyone who criticizes Keith Olberman on a progressive blog like this one is what you call an "astroturfer" -- someone pretending to be a grassroots member of the community, but isn't.

Who specializes in "astroturfing"? Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's top strategist.

[Burson-Marsteller, Penn's company] pioneered the use of pseudo-grassroots front groups, known as "astroturfing," to wage stealth corporate attacks against environmental and consumer organizations.

So when you see comments like this one on a progressive blog, take it with a grain of salt. It's the astroturfers talking.

That's what I get from this, the clip in question was condemned even here on the Frontpage by Todd, who I don't think anyone would say is in the tank for Obama, it was a stupid quote. Oh, and both Hillary and Bill campaign for short ride Joe in the primary as well-- notice who Lamont endorsed.  

You know she'd have a lot more credibility on these supposed differences from Bill, if she'd authorize the release of her White House Minutes and Phone Logs.

I've been done with Olberman for a couple of weeks now.  He's really in the tank for Obama, and being extremely smug about it.

While Hillary's comments were clearly over the top (will she endorse McCain if Obama gets the nomination), I think it's interesting that the diarist is, like Hillary, whining when she gets attacked.  

So much for being the candidate who is best able to stand up to attacks from the Republicans.

He's often insufferable, but was right on target this time.  Shame on Hillary for teaming up with John McCain to attack a fellow Democrat.  Many of us were wondering when the media would pick up on this story.  Down with Joe Liebermanism!

Olbermann is not the one who said John McCain meets the standard for being commander in chief, implying she'd rather have him as presiden than Obama.

Olbermann is not the one who lies about his experience.

Olbermann is not the one who ran an advertisement where he blackened Senator Obama's face.

Olbermann is not the one who wouldn't give a flat-out denial to Obama's being a muslim on 60 Minutes.

Olbermann is not the one who did indeed go to the Canadian government and tell them to not listen to his rhetoric on NAFTA.

You're asking if the wrong person can repair his/her reputation. Hillary has a lot to answer to for this disgraceful campaign she is running.

 I've thought his campaign coverage was atrocious. Instead of serving as the voice of reason and fairness to counteract the blatant bias of Chris Mathews, he has instead tried to become more like him. I tuned in to Countdown last night for the first time in weeks. I didn't like what I saw. Keith Olberman slamming a Democratic candidate with a look of malicious glee on his face, and Richard Wolfe chiming in with a George Bush smirk. KO has always been a bit too smug and self-centered for my taste, but I watched him because of his scathing critique of the Bush administration. No more. I will get my news from Fox before I watch MSNBC again.

Clinton is using smart politics, one any candidate would easily use to defeat the other one, or make them look unelectable in the eyes of the voters and in the case of the Democrats, in the eyes of the Super Delegates. MSNBC has been in the tank with Obama since the race began, and then jumped on his bandwagon and created a crusade to destroy Hillary ever since. You just have to laugh at their antics since all their lambasting of the Clintons is not working to their benefit as they had hoped it would.

The boys at MSNBC are on record with their hatred of Hillary Clinton.

David Shuster, Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman etc none of them can stand the thought of a woman in charge, all have made continued sexist comments and none should be viewed as "journalists"

You know what's going on. Shuster, Scarborough, Matthews and Olbermann were pissed off that Matthews had to apologize for his comment about Hillary Clinton the morning after she won New Hampshire. The next day, Shuster and Scarborough came right out and said he shouldn't have to apologize. Shuster felt compelled to go into a speech about how wonderful Matthews is to work with. Then Shuster made his comment about Rep. Maxine Waters' endorsement of Sen. Clinton being "desperate" and then he made the incomprehensible comment about Sen. Clinton "pimping out" her daughter Chelsea, who was doing what many candidate's children do: Campaign for their parents.

It was inexcusable; Shuster slipped because he was so angry about the Matthews apology--which would never have happened without MSNBC brass demanding Matthews apologize. Of course, like any adolescent male forced to be accountable for your actions, Shuster was suspended. Only that just made him angrier, and more determined to smear Clinton to GET BACK AT HER.

Instead of taking responsibility for their actions, the FratHouseBoyz [Russert, Matthews, Shuster, Carlson, Scarborough] at MSNBC choose to direct their anger at the target of their original loathing, Sen. Clinton.

We then were treated to the disgusting spectacle at the last MSNBC debate--Russert and Williams in typical Frat House Boyz style, sticking it to Clinton.

Shuster is now back from his suspension. His first day back at Morning Joe, he directs viewers attention to Whitewater [!] in a smarmy, conspiratorial tone, saying that there were still "questions." Well. $73 Million dollars and a dozen years later, including a final report which exonerated them, Shuster is still trying to dredge up hints of scandal.

Anything to smear Hillary Clinton. Anything.

And, now, Keith is seeing how far he can push the envelope, stretch the truth, and engage in BILLO hyperbole.

I don't watch Olbermann anymore. His schtick is low-brow, FOX-STYLE, propaganda.

Edward R. Murrow? Fuggedaboudit. Keith Olbermann is BILLO on another channel; Olbie is nothing but a demogogue in service to his leader of the lost boys, Chris Matthews.

But make no mistake. This is being allowed to continue by MSNBC brass. So, you can thank Dan Abrams, since he is the FratHouseBoyz boss in management.

Instead of whining and playing victim perhaps you should acknowledge just how stupid Senator Clinton's remarks have been and how damaging they will be to our general election hopes with Senator Obama as our nominee.

It's a pivot.

They can't yet hate Obama, but they can already work on the other Democratic possibility.

We all know that a Democrat will win the White House this year.  In order for MSNBC to remain profitable, and for KO to be relevant, they have to be "critical", and what better target than another Clinton.

Especially when Obama fanatics don't seem too eager to come together and support Hillary if she becomes nominee.

There's your natural audience.

Big Media is a BUSINESS first and foremost.  Let's remember that.

Dear Keith,
By force of habit, at midnight last night while I was scrolling through MYDD posts, I turned on MSNBC.  I hadn't seen any cable news yet and wanted to catch up.  And before this year, I was so starved for commentary critical of Bush, I was pretty loyal to you.    

As I listened to you yet again turn innuendo, distortion and just plain lies into news,  as I listened to the fratboy vitriol against Clinton in your voice, as I watched your sneery face, I reached over and shut the TV off.  As soon as I had done it, I realized the gesture had a ring of finality.  In the quiet room, I felt an enormous relief to have you out of my life.

Yours truly,
an ex

Are you sure that people outside the bubble of myDD actually think Keith did anything wrong? I don't.

   

"We do not have a direct quote indicating her campaign told us she thought it was good for the economy at that time."-Newsday

"You know, in the years after her husband signed NAFTA, Senator Clinton would go around talking about how great it was and how many benefits it would bring."-Obama Obama mailer: Hillary Clinton believed NAFTA was a "boon" to our economy

    "Obama's use of the citation in this way does strike us as misleading. The quote marks make it look as if Hillary said "boon," not us. It's an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try to win an office".-Newsday

No problem, Newsday, I got your back:

Hillary's 2002 DLC Speech:

We all know the record of the DLC, the Progressive Policy Institute and, of course, the Clinton-Gore Administration. The economic recovery plan stands first and foremost as a testament to both good ideas and political courage. National service. The Brady Bill. Family Leave. NAFTA. Investment in science and technology. New markets. Charter schools. The Earned Income Tax Credit. The welfare to work partnership. The COPS program. The SAFER program. All of these came out of some very fundamental ideas about what would work. The results speak for themselves. Those ideas were converted into policies programs that literally changed millions of lives and, I argue, changed America.

Seriously, I'm going to have to bind a hotkey for pasting that if people keep trying to deny that Hillary supported NAFTA.

There are plenty more, although I think that's the best. How about:

"I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth," she said, adding that if American workers can compete fairly, they can match any competition. "That's what a free and fair trade agreement like NAFTA is all about," she said.

Changed her mind? Fine. But when she says she never supported NAFTA, it's a lie.

Senator Obama himself endorsed Joe Lieberman over Democratic Primary Challenger Ned Lamont, and gave that glowing praise at their annual Democratic Party dinner in Connecticut, in which Ned Lamont was also in attendance.

Quite possibly one of the most idiotic things ever. That said, Olbermann does a news show, and doesn't report on news from 2 years ago.(Also, both Clintons also backed Lieberman in the primary. AFAIK, none of them endorsed him in his CfL run)

Keith also brought up Obama's NAFTAgate claiming that someone from the Hillary Campaign last month also told Canada to take lightly her NAFTA position. First of all, that is also a lie. Because it was reported "that indirectly someone claiming from the Clinton campaign" (I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's people called and said "you can include Clinton's campaign on this too"), but Hillary not only denied it, (which Goolsbee from the Obama campaign could not and did not) and Hillary said she gives them blankent immunity to release the name of whomever contacted them (because they knew they did not). Video No such confirmation ever came against the Clinton Campaign, but the Canadian's DID release the memo of the Obama talks, that the AP released.

Okay, I know the Hillary supporters have their fingers plugged deep in their ears on this one and are firmly going "LALALALA" by now, but:

(1) The memo was effectively some meeting notes. They're one guy's interpretation, and a canadian investigation (where they presumably ask, you know, other people at the meeting) said that it "may have mischaracterized" Goolsbee. In policy specifics, he did not contradict Obama.

(2) The thing Olbermann is referring to is not the CTV story which said there was "also low-level contact from the Clinton campaign" which "they deny". The second source on Clinton's involvement is the Stephen Harper's Chief of Staff, who is quoted as saying that Hillary's campaign had called them and told them "not to worry" about her NAFTA rhetoric. What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander, eh? Ironically, the Canadians have declared the memo to be unreliable, but Ian Brodie has not retracted his statement.

As for "immunity" - Clinton can't give Brodie immunity from prosecution, so her immunity means nothing. He's not going to talk now - it will be a miracle if he keeps his job. This is turning into a firestorm in Canada that could actually swing Canadian elections. That's a lot of trouble to be in for a remark that's pure fantasy.

Anything to smear Hillary Clinton. Anything.

When you bash someone on NAFTA, and they get cleared, and you get implicated, you're going to take heat. When you praise the Republican as experienced, you're going to take some heat.

Shuster, on the other hand, needs to learn to shut the crap up. Touting whitewater as an issue at this late date is basically ridiculous without seriously compelling new evidence.

On the other hand, what the heck is Wolfson doing mentioning Ken Starr? Good job getting that back on everyone's mind.

No need to repair what isn't broken.

What's funny is that a couple of months ago some people complained that he was pro-hillary. I guess the more he saw, the less he liked.

...you guys know Maddow was very critical of Clinton's McCain comments, right?  

Shun the heretic!  Shun the unbeliever!  Shunnnn...

Listed below are all the "Liberal" or "Progressive" media types that we owe it to our country to destroy, and to destroy now before they can perpetrate any more damage to our great nation.

Keith Olberman.................Obviously hates Hillary and loves Obama
David Schuster...................Hates Chelsea Clinton
Stephanie Miller.................Loves Obama, so must hate Hillary
Thom Hartmann.................Hard to tell, but I'll think of something
Ed Schultz.........................Hates Hillary, loves Obama, hates McCain
Rachel Maddow.................Hates Hillary's campaign, so must love Obama
Randi Rhodes....................Loves Obama, hates Hillary's campaign
Peter B Collins..................Hates Hillary's campaign, loves Obama
Mike Malloy......................Hates Hillary and Obama, loves Kucinich
Bill Press...........................Hates Hillary's campaign
Russ Belville.....................Loves Obama
Sam Seder..........................Loves Obama
John Stewart......................Makes fun of Hillary and her supporters
Stephen Colbert................well, there is a reason to be sure, I just don't know it yet.

These people MUST be stopped it is our patriotic duty to take the only handful of  liberal media types off the air immediately. their voices must be silenced.  

Jesus H. Christ!  Come on people, get with the plan.  Have I missed anyone?

Sincerely,

Jesus Hussein Christ.

You hardcore anti-Obama people are doing damage to HRC by being so insulated.  KO is not being unfair.  I'm sure he would have a problem with the Samantha Power comments (she has been decried by BHO, and she is now gone.)  The more HRC pursues a me first, party second strategy, the more she is likely to be called out by KO, that is fair.  She needs to reign it in, not KO.  It isn't the Clintonatic party, it's the Democratic party.

On myDD I always see these right wing hit pieces on BHO, but you (and no progressive site, e.g. dKos) don't show what the right wing would use against HRC, e.g. the part of the 9-11 report that says Clinton foriegn policy inspired Bin Ladin to do 9-11.

You don't have a true picture of the weaknesses of HRC.  But, you are seeing (and participating in) the right wing hits on BHO.  I actually think this will inoculate BHO now rather than in Nov., so it may not be bad.

And, of course the HRC team is feeding lies to the right wing nuts:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/o bama.madrassa/

You are all deranged. The greatest critic of Bush. better than any politician or media type. And he gets thrown away for speaking the truth on Dear Hillary. Tell me what you think of Todd... http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/6/18181 2/5082

??????

.
KO posted a diary on dailykos where he
wrote that he doesn't have a beef
with either Democratic candidates.

from that dairy onward it was all a bashing
show against Hillary. first with snide remarks
and innuendoes to over-the-top rant of last nite.

i am an early viewer of his show from the
time when O'Falafel attacked him personally.

the irony is KO turns into a lefty version of O'Falafel with his self-righteous indignation, rants of pompous self-importance.

Who appointed him that role or he self-anointed
himself?

i stopped watching weeks ago.
no, i did not watch last nite and i know what he is capable of based on his past shows and comments of KO show from last nite

Look, I can play crazy too

I'd rather vote for McCain than that shrill, republican lite, lying, racist, establishment, triangulating, NAFTAloving, War supporting, former first lady of a moderatly capable president,

existing in your own reality is really fun, isnt it

Olberman is pointing out what is pretty obvious to everyone who isn't a fingers-in-their-ears-I-can't-hear-you-L A-LA-LA-LA Clinton supporter.

The question is, can Hillary Lieberman Clinton recover he reputation after poisoning the Democratic well with this stupidity about McCain and her lies about NAFTA.

And the answer is no.

Keith Olberman is a total tool.  I can't believe anyone takes him seriously.  He is a bad stand up comic trying to do news.  Blech.  If I want comedy with my news I watch Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.  At least they are actually funny!

It is very simple
Clinton is running on her experience. Most of the years of this experience is being married to a Governor and a President. Yes, as a result she has OBSERVED how decisions are made. That is a difference and experience she has gained.

What O-man pointed out, and rightfully so is her raising McCain up to a higher level than Obama to be President. She should be bashing McCain not praising him.

If she wants to point out how she would defeat McCain in a manner Obama cannot fine. In fact that is what she should be doing.

Even the most die hard Clinton supporter should be thinking "Hillary, you don't need to praise McCain to defeat Obama"

The November election has a real chance for a Dem landslide. A 60 Dem Senate and an overwhelming House is more important than who will be President.

Remember, super delegates are full tilt Party members. Party first folks.

..and yes is and will be about Iraq/Economy

the sign of a zealot and of a candidate who would manage the same kind of politics as the Bush Administration.

if the commentator doesnt agree with you, trash him.

SO many stories against the Bush administration have SO MUCH to owe to Lieberman - the Plame thing might not have gotten nearly as much attention had it not been for him. Lets not forget what he has done. THAT gives him credibility, whereas you, O anonymous blogger, have none.

*Olbermann, not lieberman.

Funny, the only person I know who would want to be compared to Joe Lierberman, would probably be the one who called him his "MENTOR",

MENTORs are assigned, not choses

Senator Obama himself endorsed Joe Lieberman over Democratic Primary Challenger Ned Lamont

Hillary Clinton also endorses Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont in the primary. Not a single sitting Senator endorsed Ned Lamont in the primary.

However.....

Tim Tagaris:
President Clinton, on the other hand, probably provided the singular destructive post-primary moment of anyone outside the campaign.  He provided every national Democrat the cover they needed to stay out of the race in one single moment on Larry King Live.  He said he wasn't too concerned about who won the election between Ned and Joe.  Mind you, this was post-primary, and he was pretty much the first big-name national Democrat to do so. When he was asked to put out a statement clarifying that he supported Ned, we were told he was on vacation, but one would be forthcoming.  Well, we got one mealy-mouthed sentence a few days later.  He never made it right.  Ever.

Bill Clinton is the reason Joe Lieberman is still in the Senate.

with Keith Olbermann last night. I will not watch his show again until after the primary season is over.

Dan Abrams has a bias toward Clinton.  I still watch his show anyway but then I don't freak out when someone promotes Clinton or criticizes Obama.  I do freak out a little when untrue statements are given legs but MSNBC has been pretty careful in that regard.

I thought he turned rabidly frothy against Clinton when his good buddy David Schuster had to pay some dues for the Chelsea Clinton slam.

Too bad. The stress of so boldly opposing CheneyBush has gotten to him, and unbalanced his perception and sense of fairly honest reporting.

Or maybe he's been threatened with a short stint in Gitmo?

Payback's a... well, you know.

Do we still live in a nation where sexism is stronger than racism? Yes!
Is the "good old boys club" still in charge?
Yes!
Is Hillary called a bitch because she is an example of a strong woman? Yes

I have no way of knowing, but I believe it is not Bill, or Penn that makes the final decision on what happens in her campaign. I believe (without knowing)that Hillary make the final call.
She would, if elected, be making the final call.

I believe(without knowing the same for Obama)

I can understand Clinton's position after the major part of 9/11 happened in her State.
What I can NEVER understand is her judgment in trusting Bush to do the right thing.

What I cannot understand is her decision to place McCain above a fellow Democrat Obama.

What I do understand, is even without our candidate in place by the time is comes here
to Denver it will be harsh and ugly.

What I do understand is if the Decision is not made by Denver? ...It will be 24/7 in Denver. Denver is not a major city like where Conventions are usually held. There is not room in Downtown. There already is a plan for "temporary" outdoor holding areas. There are not enough police so the Colorado National Guard will be a visible presence. The Republicans will win and
the Democratic Party will have a permanent split between the DLC and everyone else.

This was a practice run..note only 40 males were arrested and we were 4 to a cell in Denver City Jail.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2999 59,00.html

spoke for most thinking democrats last nite. Hillary should not be praising McCain at the expense of a democrat. It just is not done. Until she started doing it. Veteran observers do not remember anybody in the same party teaming up with the other party candidate before.

KO just spoke the obvious. Hillary was beyond the pale with her comments. She needs to be aware of how these types of comments sound to democratic voters and superdelegates.

I am an Obama supporter but I am a democrat first and want my nominee to win, be it Hillary or Barack. These comments hurt us. Please refrain Hillary.

I began to see how petty he was during his feud with O'Reilly.  He just wouldn't let it go no matter how fanatical, obsessive, and tiring this daily ritual became.  To a reasonably dispassionate person, it should not have been hard to admit that O'Reilly began to appear as the more "fair and balanced" of the two.

So St. Olbermann was only being fair.

I'd like to see just ONE, just ONE example where Olbermann said something even mildly critical of Obama.  Just one time, once.

There's got to be at least one tiny thing that Obama has said or done that would wrankle Keith.

I can hear the crickets already.

Keith is just a Michael Vick loving, Democracy hating arrogant scumbag.  No, his "reputation" will never be repaired.  He never had one to begin with.  He was just a ratings-craving LOSER.

Olbermann is the absolute worst kind of hack. A disreputable, disgruntled self-important hack.

As ridiculous as "clap, clap, point, point" looks, I sure prefer it to the Clinton's current whine, whine, cry, cry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_WIqjj0W VA&eurl=http://www.facebook.com/post ed.php?id=93401405

I am surprised that he has any reputation other than sliming Bill O'Reilly - He should stick to it, rather than try to do more than his worth.

" WA wa wa why is the media so mean! wa wa wa"

GROW UP! Dear god! Keith is a well spoken, intelligent, forceful progressive force on television and you want to disown of him just because he attacked Hillary on NAFTA. Pathetic.

Also you lied. Obama did endorse Lamont.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut _United_States_Senate_election,_2006#For _Lamont

I'm sure she'd like that. Her unfunny (unless you're into RNC misogyny) pro-Bamabias AirAmerica (?) radio show has destroyed Chicago morning drive time.

..ever repair his reputation?

Sure he can repair his reputation...

All he has to do is continue to tell the verifiable truth about Hillary Clinton.

..ever repair his reputation?

Sure he can repair his reputation...

All he has to do is continue to tell the verifiable truth about Hillary Clinton.

when a sports commentator became the hot new thing in political news?  The only reason he does anything is to get the attention for himself.  The guy is a hack, pure and simple.

hates the Clintons.

Always has.

What do you expect?  Olbermann knows which side his bread is buttered on.  GE owns NBC (and MSNBC).  GE wants to build nuclear power plants.  Now which one of our candidates has voted for nuclear power plants and, among other things, played footsie with Excelon.  Bingo.

OF COURSE Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson are touting Obama.  Dan Abrams does, too, he just tries to make it look as if, in comparison to the aforesaid slimey trio, he is attempting to be fair.  This is simply to be able to say, "Hey, MSNBC is fair...look at Dan Abrams."

will KO report the news from Canada confirming Clinton camp never spoke to them and reconfirming Obama did?

www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RT GAM.20080307.wnaftagate0307/BNStory/Nati onal/home
OTTAWA -- Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama's campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Friday.

You are spot on.  As someone who was banned from the Ed Schultz show as a regular contributor because I praised Keith as the Edward R. Murrow of our generation, I have come to the same conclusion as you.  Keith has lost perspective and judgment.  He's just a shrill poseur with a misogynistic bent.  Very sad.

As someone who used to appear on his show I will no longer respond affirmatively to any invitation from his producers.  Adios Keith.
Larry Johnson

Why would he want to? Obama's going to be the next President of the United States.

She's destroying the party. It's all about HER. She's proving it was never about being a progressive. It was about her gaining power. Her supporters are the ones who truly have cult audacity... WAKE UP, SHE ISN'T GONNA WIN WITHOUT RIPPING THE PARTY IN TWO. LEARN 2 MATH!!!!

Keith Olbermann's show has essentially become a hour long commercial for Barack Obama.

It's a complete joke.

Once he signed that big contract and started teaming with Tweety Matthews, I knew it was over.  He really has disppointed me greatly.   I think his ego was stroked more by the money and being the rising star than by an audience appreciative of truth-telling.  

... and Obama supporters are the koolaid drinkers.  

Finally there is someone out there in media that is speaking truth to power.  Someone to counter Faux News and the mindless stenographers on the other channels.  He's an asset that progressive have sorely needed for ages.  He is brave beyond words and succinct in the face of the treasons committed on our nation for the last 7 years.  

Then he has the audacity to report on realities that Hilary supporters find inconvenient and here come the flame throwers.  What is there of value to democrats and progressives that Hilary fans aren't willing to destroy with their scorched earth warfare in the never ending quest to deny the writing that is and has been on the wall for a while now?

not sure what you're talking about.  Keith's reputation improves every day.  He's telling the truth.

I think it's funny that the supporters of Mr. Bipartisan Hopebringer are the ones attacking Sen. Clinton the most for having the nerve to imply that McCain might actually be qualified to be President.  How dare she!

But Olbermann's summation was pathetically representative of what he has become. He was yakking with nightly puppet Dana Milbank, regarding the monster topic. Olbermann said, "Truth as a defense."

Unbelievable. Others have summarized very well. Talent and education are not lockstep with class, and Olbermann has none of the later. His early Special Comments were devastating critique of Bush and this administration, in fair tone and using their own words and deeds as indictments. Later he resorted to juvenile word twisting ("Fox Noise Channel," "Bill Orally") and adopted a remarkably smug and condescending approach. At that point he lost me, long before the Hillary bashing.

As an initial supporter of Edwards it was simple to evaluate the Hillary/Obama question in terms of media coverage, and Olbermann was disgraceful from the outset.

The amusing aspect is how defensive he is about the recent SNL skits. They clearly irritate him, even though somehow he has been spared as a specific target. A couple of days ago he desperately mentioned one question from himself to Obama, and one from Russert, supposedly verifying there is no NBC bias toward Obama. LOL. If there were no bias he would either be able to name many more than two, or so evident he wouldn't need to list any at all. Only a sad parody of himself, as Olbermann has become, doesn't seem to grasp that.

Actually, I wonder if the lack of focus on SNL may be partially why he is annoyed, even if subconsciously "Hey, I'm as slanted as anyone! Don't tell me I'm not important enough to mock!"

I certainly don't watch him anymore -- or anything else on msnbc. and I don't watch nbc news anymore.  since I don't watch fox either,  all that's left is CNN -- and I like it that CNN actually has women host some of the prime time slots.  msnbc is a bunch of old sexist frat boys, and I do not share their mind set.

olbermann is repulsive -- you can actually see white spit frothing at the corners of his mouth -- and matthews mouth has that white spit too. yuk.

After watching Ob I was compelled to write this post to his blog, not that I had any disillusion that he would have the guts to actually put it on his blog, they only want to post agreeable things that favor him.  I actually wrote it and then copied it so as not to take too much time while posting because that often messes up the post.  Now I will copy it here so that anyone who is not so blind because of rabid support for Obama might read.  Obama supporters have become the new Hillary haters, replacing republicans who have finally realized that she is not nearly as bad as these rabid Obamabots have become.  The bots are the new haters.  All over the bolgs the hate is most rampant, and disgusting in the maximum.  I have decided to not ever vote for bama because of this ridiculous hatred.  Nothing will change my mind, this kind of hatred is destructive and uncalled for.  We can't they just support their candidate without this hatred?  Children and people who don't grow up always find excuses to hate because it is such a strong emotion, it seems to color everything they do and say but it also distorts, and diminishes their candidate. It also brings out resistance and breads ugly reprisals. I am the result.  I could never consider voting for their guy and even though I have always been a democrat this year, if bama is the nominee, I just won't vote.  They can thank themselves for the people who will not be voting for Obama because of this hatred, which I find just repulsive.  I think bama will find a very hard time trying to get elected, and I will enjoy watching him go down to defeat, because it is already written in the stars, he does not have enough experience and cannot win with inspiration and hate alone.
Here is the post:
I dare you to post this comment. I have noticed that comments such as mine rarely see the published blog.    Your guests tonight, and the host are all suffering under a collective delusion.  You think by grossly distorting and twisting Clinton's words and insulting her non stop, you diminish her and inflate Obama.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  In fact, this show is so far from truth it becomes a malicious attempt to try to cut her up and spit out the pieces.  However, this does absolutely nothing for Obama.  I know the Obama campaign has threatened to `go negative', as if they had not been doing so for this whole past year.  From the beginning of this campaign Obama has ridiculed Clinton, belittling her, saying that often repeated Rove comment that Clinton is so divisive.  The echo in the press implies a fallacy as truth.  Since Senator Clinton has been in the senate, she has worked across party lines, earning praise from republicans who have said that she has proven to be a hard working  pleasant surprise. However, Obama has talked about  but not actually done that, being a reliable liberal partisan vote in the senate. There have of course been Clinton haters.  Richard Wolfe has never said a kind thing about Clinton this whole time.  His harsh insults are tiresome and full of sneers , Margaret  cannot stand that another woman would be even trying to use her accomplishments and service to demonstrate her qualifications.  You all say that Clinton's time in the White House is not any experience at all, basically reducing her to the simpering but charming Laura Bush, as some kind of equal.  This is really ridiculous.  The very reason republicans and the press just couldn't stand Hillary in the 90s is because she did wield such influence and did indeed hold a much more involved place along side her husband.  At least she has been there and Obama has not.  She consistently stood up to the false accusations and finally after spending over fifty million dollars, no charges.  But the only way that Obama could stand up to her is to diminish her experience, so instead of finding something that Obama could place on the scales, you think that tearing her down is the thing to do.  That is what Obama has been about for this whole campaign.  While pretending to be the candidate of hope, change, and high inspiration, he nevertheless trashed everything she has accomplished  and insulted her whenever possible You keep implying she said things she never said and interpret anything she says in a twisted and malicious way. Yet that still provides us with no answer to the basic question which is not about her experience and competence, but about his.  The Press Conference where 30 generals and other military people endorse her is not even mentioned, but you take some comment and distort that, as if that was what she said, or even meant.  What she meant in my view, is that instead of providing Obama's qualifications, which is the important thing, he and you only provide belittling and insulting comments about her.  She never says she wanted McCain, never, but you wouldn't know that from listening to your guests.  She actually said it is up to Obama to present his credentials on national security, and it is.

When looking at Hillary you look through the female lens, but in looking at Obama we must never look through the African American lens, the ice is much thinner there.

The  misogynistic adjectives applied to Clinton like whining or shrill or cackle and comments about her appearance are insulting and small.  This classless disrespect is so pervasive you don't even realize you are doing it, or you are really full of that much hate and envy.  Maybe you are all being required to do this by your corporate bosses. Advertising dollars do not allow you license  with the truth.

You must not realize that this country is in trouble.  The regular Americans you care little about are worried.  Our country is in desperate need.  We don't need a campaign of audacity, we need a person that will do the job, Obama does not even do the job he has now.  We are afraid of losing our homes, or our jobs, we need health care for our children and ourselves.  Yes we hope, but what we hope is that we select a competent person to actually make this country work again.  The question is not all this stupid gossip and distortion, but the qualifications of the people who are vying for this job.  The amazing thing is even though Hillary Clinton knows what a difficult job she is facing  she is still willing to offer her service to us.  She has proven over and over that she can and will do the hard work.  All we want to know is not about her, we already know about her and this gossip is not what matters to us.  What we need to know is what Obama has to offer, and not just his great speeches, but his plans.  After two years in the senate Obama feels he is qualified to be president.  This is what matters to us. We don't care about Rezko, we don't care about old scandals or old republican talking points.  We don't need you to reinterpret her words in the most negative and scurrilous way.  We need to know can Obama actually do the job. Those in Texas and Ohio voted on their needs, not the small infighting and trash tabloid talk.    It appears that what Obama wants to do for us is to insult her, belittle her and with your help,  it's all we get.  Biased commentary is `worst person in the world' material.

A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote against MSNBC.

is that Olbermann is an a*hole to his staff.

If one is a Clinton supporter, the Olbermann campaign on behalf of Obama, which mirrors that of the larger MSM, comes as no surprise.

Of all people, no less than Bill O'Reilly correctly pointed out that a turning point in the campaign, exposing the press and punditry for all their pro-Obama bias, resulted from the recent series of "Saturday Night Live" sketches, parodying the Obama love fest.

"Saturday Night Live," from its inception in 1975, which in 1976 found Chevy Chase rendering Gerald Ford in prat-falls of clumsiness, through the recent 2000 and 2004 campaigns in which GWB was viewed as idiotic but Gore and Kerry as elitist and aloof, has in fact actually made the difference in which candidate ultimately prevails.

Forever hereafter, Obama will be viewed as the coddled love child of the American media, woefully lacking in substance and ridiculously vaulted above his freshman senator status.

After seven years plus of having the "village idiot" at the helm of the Executive Office, the prospect of Obama being there, through SNL's brilliant satire, makes the United States look even more pathetic to the rest of the world.

Which is why cooler minds will ultimately prevail in the Democratic Party, and Hillary Clinton, the real winner of real blue-state primaries, rather than Barack Obama, the winner of Red State caucuses and fringe state primaries, will represent the Democratic Party come fall.

Anyone who lives in Ohio and still also thinks in political reality knows that Obama is a gone-er here in the general election, inasmuch as he lost 83 of 88 counties last Tuesday.

With Ohio gone (forget any current polls with GE match-ups for November--hard reality tells one that Ohio will not vote for someone who has lost 83 of its 88 counties in the primary!), Obama will be lucky to do well even in blue states.

Obama guarantees a McCain landslide.

Hillary Clinton, very strong in blue states and the genuine bell-weather Ohio, is the only chance the Democrats have at all.

Clinton has already said she would run on the same ticket as Obama. That is an implicit endorsement of Obama as a commander-in-chief. The explicit endorsement will come when the primary is over.

Clinton was stating the obvious about McCain (that he is qualified to be Commander-in-chief, and is seen that way by the majority of Americans) is not an endorsement of McCain. She will take his head off and hand it to him when the time is right.

She is saying that the Democrats will have to nominate a candidate that also is seen by the American people to be commander-in-chief material or we will lose badly. Clinton has 30 generals endorsing her. Like her or not, she has the respect of the generals because she knows her shit.

She also said that Obama will have to make the case for himself; she's not going to do that for him, at least not in the primaries.

Why is it that when Clinton was the front-runner and Obama was saying "she will say or do anything to get elected president", that no one said "Obama, why are you personally attacking Clinton, the likely nominee and helping the Republicans"?

Why didn't Oberman criticize Obama then? Or criticize Edwards. They were all trashing Clinton along with the Republicans. That is why Obama was able to do well. No one was attacking him and EVERYONE, all the Democrats and Republicas, were attacking Clinton.

Then, when Clinton fights back (with the obvious truth) Oberman and Obama supporters cry foul. What hypocritical bullshit.

That's what you should be asking yourself.