Keith Olbermann Isn't O'Reilly. Even Hillary Wouldn't Label Him This Way.

[berni_mccoy]

I'm often surprised by the extreme Obama-haters at this site who declare long-time Liberal figures as Right-wingers. Well, I'm not really surprised anymore, but the latest labeling of Olbermann as O'Reilly really did, especially from a DUer that has been a long-time defender of KO. And the argument was so foul and weak, that it really took me off guard.

The latest throwing of KO under the bus is just an indicator of how desperate some of Hillary's supporters have become. Some of the 'supporting evidence' sited of the transformation of KO to O'Reilly are:
1. KO called attempts to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida the “nuclear option”.
2. He called Clinton’s proposed gas tax cuts “pandering”.
3. He called Clinton’s response to Obama ads which distort remarks Krugman made “attack ads”.
Milbank says Clinton is not “worried about casualties.”

Let's address these in kind:
1. Olbermann didn't create the term. It had been in the MSM all day long and originated from the Huffington Post and was discussed by the Clinton campaign as no secret. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/04/clinton-camp-considering_n_100051.html
2. Almost EVERY news outlet is calling her gas-tax holiday pandering. Just Google "Clinton pander". If you are going to say KO is O'Reilly for this, then you better label all media as O'Reilly.
3. Anytime a politician uses their opponent as the focus of an add, it's an attack ad. There is no such thing as a political 'defense' ad.

The post goes on to attack all of MSNBC and defend Fox news. It's pretty amazing to see the transformation of DUers into extremists that would attack their own. I especially find this amazing because the poster had just recently criticized DUers for being part of a circular firing squad. The only circular firing squad I see going on here are the baseless attacks against members of the Liberal media and defenders of the Democratic causes. Howard Dean himself, who led us to an incredible victory in 2006 for the Democratic party is now being lambasted by Extreme Hillary Supporters for following and enforcing the rules of the party.

The plain simple truth is that these extremists can't face the truth of Hillary's campaign, even when Hillary can herself. It's evidently here in DU: just read some of the posts that expose some truths about Clinton. Then read the responses. Form defending her pro-NAFTA stance and hypocritical attack of Obama to Voter Suppression tactics targeting African Americans in NC and several other states. They defend it. Not all Hillary supporters are like this, just the very vociferous ones here. I have to wonder if they are truly projecting onto Keith Olbermann what they are really becoming.

[lapfog_1]

1. It's down the list, but one of my reasons for wanting

a clear victory for Obama today (wins both states) is that it MIGHT cause Clinton to drop out (actually, I don't think it would... but we can be hopeful). And if she does, we would have a presumptive nominee....

And granite cookies for quite a number of irritants (mostly on ignore right now).

[PoliticalAmazon]

60. Are "granite cookies" anything like the delicious "stone cookies" they make in Hawaii? MMMMM...

[spag68]

105. I believe that is "stoned" cookies!

[lapfog_1]

2. self-delete - dup

[me b zola]

3. Thanks, Bernie

:kick:

[bjobotts]

108. For what...making a mountain out of a mole hill.Next it will be "Americans claim" when it's 5 guys

[H2O Man]

4. Thank you.

There are some very shallow "thinkers" on DU posting combinations of nonsense and horse shit.

Nominated.

[Binka]

5. Nonsense and Horse Shit!!!

OK I LOVE IT!:thumbsup: Please let it be over soon. Please.

[speedoo]

6. Exactly. Horseshit is what that stupid post was.

I read the first paragraph and deceided it was not even worth a response. I decided to let it sink.

[GoneOffShore]

112. I don't have to let the stupid sink, because most of them are on ignore.

[berni_mccoy]

14. I agree. And Thank YOU H2O Man.

[fascisthunter]

82. I Agree

I have never seen a swear types by you, but it was fitting.

[speedoo]

7. K&R, and bookmarked.

Thanks berni.

[Beausoir]

8. He's a former sports-jock who is more interested in making the news than reporting the news.

Ted Baxter with a slightly better suit.

[BlueManDude]

24. He'll be remembered as one of the few Truth Tellers of this disgraceful era.

I'm talking about 2001-2008. This ridiculous Democratic campaign has made a lot of good people look bad - on both sides.

[papau]

100. not really - Once honest he now smears and lies as needed for Obama

[berni_mccoy]

25. Wow, what a change in your position about KO. Thanks for the perfect example.

Why not even 9 months ago, you were praising KO: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1696344#1696397

[returnable]

33. Oh, SNAP!

:kick:

[Beausoir]

35. Yep. That was before he began believing his own press and morphed into a grotesque caricature of

Rush Limbaugh.

Olberman USED to spend his time pointing out the crimes of the Bush regime.

Now? Not so much. He's fixated on Clinton.

I make no apologies for pointing out his failure.

[Shakespeare]

49. He hasn't let up on Bush one iota.

Still spends a goodly chunk of every show highlighting a litany of the administration's scandals.

But if you expect him NOT to also offer critical campaign coverage of ALL candidates, you're delusional.

Here's what I find most disingenuos: It's not just Olbermann. Hillary is being criticized by almost everyone on the left for the lousy, vicious campaign she's run. Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps she's getting all that negative coverage because she's EARNED it?

I don't have a candidate in this race anymore (I was an Edwards supporter), and I'll vote for the eventual nominee, but I find the degree of cognitive dissonance coming from the Clinton side absolutely breathtaking.

[Barrymores Ghost]

89. Too bad your obsessive resentment blinds you to the foibles of your own candidate.

Projection, much?

[Barrymores Ghost]

90. self-delete

[D23MIURG23]

94. I thought Rush Limbaugh was supporting Clinton.

:shrug:

Was I wrong in remembering him telling his zombies to vote for her in order to bring chaos to the Democratic party?

[trevjr]

99. thank you for this

i really hated that other post. finally some sense around here!
what are all the X's for?
anyway great job of debunking the spin!

[NewHampshireDem]

51. You, sir, are an ass

I bet you had no idea that KO went to Cornell University, which he entered when he was 16 years old.

Not bad for a so-called 'sports-jock', whatever that's supposed to mean. (Is it like a dead body? Or an unexpected surprise? Or a free gift?)

Edited to add link, since these days on DU, Hillary supporters demand that facts must be proven over and over again, while nonsense and horseshit get recommended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Olbermann

[cui bono]

68. If you think so little of him why are you stealing his line?

:rofl:

[tomp]

104. it must have escaped you...

....that some people actually get paid to COMMENT ON THE NEWS sometimes.

[delt664]

124. HAH you FAIL.

1. KO is an educated man. Belittling the world of sports makes you look like an elitist ass.

2. KO is not a reporter. I know America has forgotten the difference between an editorial / commentor and a reporter, but I expect people on this board to at least understand the difference.

3. KO has been one of the very few people shouting that the emperor has no clothes for the last few years, and is a patriot for doing so. Invoking Tex Baxter or Oreilly in comparison the moment he has something negative to say about your candidate is shameful.

[Lugnut]

9. K&R

Thank you Berni!

[Window]

10. K/R.

:kick:

[NanceGreggs]

11. As always ...

... right on target!

:kick: and REC'D!!!

[Bake]

47. Frankly, I'm surprised.

I never thought you were one of the Kool-Aid drinkers, and that you (of all people) could see more than one side of an issue.

A lot of former KO fans, myself included, were disappointed that KO took sides pretty early on in the primary process. Much like MoveOn and some others, we were disappointed that they took sides and alienated half the party.

I've previously indicated my displeasure with KO in this regard, and I seldom watch his show anymore. I think it was a rather dumb thing for him to do, to tank his ratings. I've never called him a RWinger, though.

Bake

[berni_mccoy]

PERFECT EXAMPLE: You see, the only side KO has taken is the side of the TRUTH. That's what you can't

see. In fact, you are so blind to the fact that these people ARE NOT taking sides that you are willing to attack NanceGreggs. You surely wouldn't see the truth if it bit you in the ass.

[berni_mccoy]

54. PERFECT EXAMPLE: You see, the only side KO has taken is the side of the TRUTH. That's what you can't

see. In fact, you are so blind to the fact that these people ARE NOT taking sides that you are willing to attack NanceGreggs. You surely wouldn't see the truth if it bit you in the ass.

[Bake]

59. Felt the need to insult me TWICE?

What you see as "telling the truth", I see as something different. You think someone overlooking one candidate's faults (exclusively) and cheerleading for that candidate constitute "telling the truth." I'm not saying he's been wrong all the time or that my candidate is above reproach, I'm just saying that for months KO has consistently taken one side in the primary process, and in so doing, has alienated a large part of his audience. Perhaps HE looks at it as courageous truth-telling. *I* do not.

You also think that I "attacked" NanceG. I did not, and frankly, I don't think she needs YOU to defend her. She is an eloquent writer and can easily defend herself if she deems it necessary. Just because we disagree on a candidate does not make us enemies.

Bake

[berni_mccoy]

62. No. That was a posting glitch. And just like you see a double insult that isn't there

You jump to conclusions about everything else. Actually, you did attack Nance by calling out her positive response. My post was not a defense but, rather, using your attack as an example of how extremely one-sighted some Hillary supporters have become.

And as other posters have pointed out in this thread and the 'other' one, KO HAS called Obama on his failures and mistakes. He has been just as critical of Obama as he has Clinton. Clinton has simply provided more material to be critical of. That's what you can't see and it is why you are exactly what you label KO to be: "Overlooking one's candidate's faults (exclusively) and cheerleading for that candidate".

Thanks again for providing a prime example.

Also, I certainly know NanceG doesn't need me to defend her. I've seen her handle plenty of Hillary extremists responses in her own OPs.

[Bake]

63. First, I'm HARDLY an "extremist," unless your definition of the word

means anyone who doesn't support your cnadidate. I've been fairly critical of Sen. Clinton on a number of occasions. I've also praised Obama on occasion as well. But to say that he has been "just as critical of Obama" is, objectively speaking, patently false, which is something I'd expect from you.

Also, I note that so far, NanceG hasn't felt my post was enough of an attack to merit a defense.

Bake

[NanceGreggs]

69. Actually, I am not a kool-aid drinker ...

... I am an Obama supporter.

I was not commenting on the KO show, but on the OP's remarks about the post he was referring to here on DU, and others of similar ilk.

The problem for many here seems to be not that KO or MoveOn (or any of the other dead to us now folks) have taken sides, but that they openly support Obama over Hillary. Had it been the other way around, these same people would be highly praised for the fact of having chosen a side.

[DeanDem10]

83. Nance, you gotta remember,

that these accusers on this thread have been told to tell everyone else "you're with us or against us" by their fearless leader (HRC). There is no room for disagreement. That's what it has come to and you have to wonder about a leader who would use this tactic right out of the Rove-Gingrich-Goldwater-Nixon playbook.

We have reeled from the onslaught of unfair, nasty tactics, tactics that should never have been used. It is worse than the old politics. It is that, the politics of destruction. But it is so much worse. She has completely demonized Obama, and then on Sunday tried to have it both ways. It's appalling.

And now the ultimate dividing wedge: We're with her or against her (and by extension the American people)? No, anyone who would use such language is against all of us, even the gullible who fell for this line. As for me, I never thought a Dem would do this to other dems. It was bad enough in 2004. But now that was a cakewalk.


PS Thanks, Bernie.

[Bake]

119. No room for disagreement?

That's RICH, coming from an Obama supporter.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

Bake

[OnyxCollie]

96. The people attacking you are left-wing authoritarians.

They defer to power, attack those that point out faults in their authoritarian figure, find ways to excuse the faults in their authoritarian figure, applaud the use of excessive power in the authoritarian figure's name, and see that as a way to make everything better.

Just because you vote (D), doesn't mean you aren't authoritarian.

My candidate was Dennis Kucinich, then he dropped out. I moved on to Edwards, and then he dropped out before I could vote. Now I'm stuck with these two.

My job is to pick the best DEMOCRATIC candidate. I'm not excited about either candidate, but I've been studying both, and one has done things/is doing things that I find unacceptable.

But these people choose not to see. They refuse to see and they can not be persuaded to do otherwise.

[OnyxCollie]

97. The people attacking you are left-wing authoritarians.

They defer to power, attack those that point out faults in their authoritarian figure, find ways to excuse the faults in their authoritarian figure, applaud the use of excessive power in the authoritarian figure's name, and see that as a way to make everything better.

Just because you vote (D), doesn't mean you aren't authoritarian.

My candidate was Dennis Kucinich, then he dropped out. I moved on to Edwards, and then he dropped out before I could vote. Now I'm stuck with these two.

My job is to pick the best DEMOCRATIC candidate. I'm not excited about either candidate, but I've been studying both, and one has done things/is doing things that I find unacceptable.

But these people choose not to see. They refuse to see and they can not be persuaded to do otherwise.

[Bake]

118. And had it been the other way around

They would be "dead" to the other half of the party.

Bake

[ExPatLeftist]

111. You seem to imply that KO "took sides" in a vacuum...

What all of you new KO haters seem to ignore is that maybe Hillary actually earned his ire. It's not like he just woke up one morning and decided to support Obama or criticize Hillary - he went through the process of analysis just like all of us. And when he saw what in HIS opinion were dirty political tricks, he called Clinton on them. That is what he does, and why he is so valuable.

So stop playing the innocent victim and realize that although you may disagree with the reasoning, people have been very turned off by HILLARY'S ACTIONS, not some random favoritism.

[urgk]

114. I agree.

I posted the following on the post that the OP referenced:

"Maybe he's right.

What happens to your argument if he's right? What if Hillary *is* a lying, manipulative, right-leaning, disingenuous, amoral, two-faced politician who would do anything to grab more power?

I mean, what if she IS?

Wouldn't it be Keith's job to report it? I mean if Keith talks about Haliburton or Kellogg, Brown and Root or Rush Limbaugh and points out the ways that they lie, cheat and manipulate, is he biased against them? Or is he just doing his job?

And what if Obama has run a more dignified, moral and genuine campaign than Hillary has? What if he has? Is it Keith's job to manufacture outrage against Obama or to report Obama's response to the Clinton attacks as somehow unacceptable? Should he skew the news to make things appear to be even if in fact they aren't? Should Keith blow something about Obama's ex-pastor out of proportion when Hillary's campaign manager represents union-busting interests, works on deals that would hurt America's working class and works on behalf of Blackwater?

It isn't the job of the media to represent both sides of any issue equally, it is the job of the media to represent the truth at the core of any given set of events. Keith may pack drama into his reporting, but if, at its core, his message is backed by the facts, it is his moral obligation to present it to the public."

[ExPatLeftist]

123. Excellent points.

I cannot comprehend the willingness of some people here to throw everyone under the bus that says anything that they do not like.

One of the advantages that we can have as Democrats, if we so choose it, is to take the high road and actually scrutinize our own party as well, rather than putting out constant rah-rah-rah party propaganda ad the GOP does. With time, if we scrutinize our own as well as theirs and also do not adopt their sleazy campaign tactics with the lame excuse that "everyone does it", then and only then will people on both sides of the aisle wake up and realize that politics is what we make it, and refuse to accept the status quo.

Only Obama is offering that change in tone and is living up to it. If he or any other Democrat messes up to the extent that Hillary has in this campaign, I hope that Keith will call him on it as well.

[berni_mccoy]

52. Thank You Nance!

:hug:

[OnyxCollie]

98. The people attacking you are left-wing authoritarians.

(DU's kinda jacked up tonight. I kept getting an error when I tried to reply to your later post.)

They defer to power, attack those that point out faults in their authoritarian figure, find ways to excuse the faults in their authoritarian figure, applaud the use of excessive power in the authoritarian figure's name, and see that as a way to make everything better.

Just because you vote (D), doesn't mean you aren't authoritarian.

My candidate was Dennis Kucinich, then he dropped out. I moved on to Edwards, and then he dropped out before I could vote. Now I'm stuck with these two.

My job is to pick the best DEMOCRATIC candidate. I'm not excited about either candidate, but I've been studying both, and one has done things/is doing things that I find unacceptable.

But these people choose not to see. They refuse to see and they can not be persuaded to do otherwise.

[DevonRex]

12. You tell it like it is, Bernie. Thanks. nt

[Forkboy]

13. It says far more about the sad sacks who believe that than it does about KO.

Biggest bunch of victims I've ever seen.

[berni_mccoy]

15. Here's another example of their Insanity (LINK)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5833161&mesg_id=5833161

[HCE SuiGeneris]

19. I can't view it.

It is one of 3 people I have on ignore. Looks like I chose well.

[berni_mccoy]

21. The poster is actually calling Super Delegates TRAITORS. Crazy.

[GoneOffShore]

113. Ah, they just joined my list as well.

The screen name suits him/her especially in regards to the size of the intellect involved.

[PDittie]

16. That is some some bitter, sore -loserish BS

right there, comparing KO to Billo. Sad to see what the last few months have wrought.

[Shakespeare]

17. It's one of the most shameful things I've seen happen on this site.

They must have tinnitis by now from all that cognitive dissonance clanging around in their heads.

KO is tough on everyone, democrats included. And Hillary has given him more than sufficient reason to be critical.

[Beausoir]

39. Name one example...just ONE where KO was tough on Obama. We'll wait.

[Shakespeare]

43. Well, I certainly don't want to keep you waiting.

Blasted Obama for a full week following Ohio/Texas primaries for the campaign's missteps.

He covered the "monster" debacle critically.

Was critical and asked tough questions on the Wright mess, both times around.

Those are the first few that come to mind, but yes, he's been tough on Obama's campaign where warranted. And I fully expect he will be again.

He was also tough on my candidate--John Edwards (I'm neither a Hillary nor an Obama supporter)--and while I didn't particularly like it, I accepted that the critical coverage was valid. I'm a reasonable enough person (and one who understands both politics and journalism sufficiently) to know that it's not going to be all rainbows and sunshine even in coverage coming from someone ostensibly on my side of the political spectrum.

[RaleighNCDUer]

95. The thing is, when KO criticized Kucinich, or Edwards, or Biden or

Richardson or Obama, the various supporters saw critiquing. When he criticizes Hillary, her supporters see attacks. There's a bunker mentality in that tends to prevail in that camp. No dissent allowed.

And I can't for the life of me figure out WHY.

[redqueen]

115. I don't know why either... but it reminds me of another politician's supporters. (nt)

[frylock]

92. pwnd

[hisownpetard]

44. I totally agree, Shakespeare!

:thumbsup:
It's so Hillary-like to turn on someone the instant they disagree - e.g. Bill Richardson, etc., etc., etc.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

18. Shame on you!

You didn't use the obligatory, eye-bleeding, headache inducing, 83,000 words to make your point... Again, shame on YOU Berni!

[Shakespeare]

22. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

:spray:


(or, to be more precise, to attempt but fail miserably in making your point)

:applause:

[berni_mccoy]

23. LOL! Thanks. The 83,000 words is pretty annoying sometimes

My philosophy is to never use words unnecessarily. It's a hard one to follow.

[DevonRex]

31. I don't even bother reading her posts. Is she a she? I think so...

but since I never read them, I can't be bothered looking at the profile.

I read long posts if they're packed with information and links. Otherwise not so much.

[gmudem]

20. Rec'd!

You are right on Berni. I don't know what is happening to Clinton supporters right now but it ain't pretty.

[The_Casual_Observer]

26. Olbermann is boring. The first 15 minutes used to be good, now the whole thing

is shitty.

[sandyj999]

27. Yeah he lost it and me. n/t

[berni_mccoy]

29. Why? Because he exposed the Truth about Hillary? Here are your words:

Just 9 months ago: "Bravo Keith You Did Us Proud!"

[berni_mccoy]

Just in February 08, You called KO "The Best Half Hour" around (regarding MSM news)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x362116#362133

[The_Casual_Observer]

30. From 1/2 to 15 min to nothing.

[berni_mccoy]

32. That's 15 minutes more each time exposing the truth about Hillary.

Something you can't handle. Thanks for proving my OP.

[The_Casual_Observer]

36. Trivial locker room towel snapping made profound by a Murrow wanna be

is " exposing the truth"? Goodnight & good luck.

[Beausoir]

40. That pretty much sums it up. Murrow wanna be. He has no shred of credibility left with anyone

except some foam at the mouth Obama supporters.

[NewHampshireDem]

53. I gotta really hand it to you Hillary folks

Your ability to be on both sides of an issue at the same time is absolutely ... well, it would be brilliant if it weren't so fucking pathetic.

Obama supporters are 'elitist' and KO and MoveOn have 'alienated half the democratic party' but yet you are the second in this thread to dismiss KO because for part of his career he was a sports caster.

Yup. Clearly Hillary folks are common people who connect with the working class and understand them. How long before you and she begin (a la John Kerry's tone-deaf idiocy) asking 'Who among us does not love NASCAR'?

Oh, wait ... I get it now. KO's in league with the elitists because he never hosted one of those hunting shows you and Hillary must so dearly love, what with all your shooting behind your uncles' cabins and all.

[uponit7771]

28. K&R, I thought it was uncalled for

[jconner27]

34. Obama supporters should talk

The hills are alive with Obama supporter hypocrisy, if they whine about the level of hate yet Beni you and your fellow Obama supporters started the name calling and being nasty. For months I didn't say anything about Obama's toilet paper thin record, over looked couple of things in his past and his cowardice (voting present or not even voting on issues that might hurt him politically) because it was about winning in November. But fuck that now, Obama supporters were the ones posting things from Newsmax and other right wing sources when it attack the Clintons and for throwing people under the bus Obama followers were tossing Paul Krugman, Joe Wilson and Larry Johnson when they start voicing their opinion about Obama. So for Obama supporters screaming about throwing Keith Olbermann under the bus is a joke.

[berni_mccoy]

38. We started the name calling and being nasty? Yeah. Sure. Believe what you want.

[Technodaoist]

120. It doesn't matter...

...who "started it" - I don't recall a bell going off the exact second a statement was misconstrued or purposefully misrepresented by anyone or their supporters.

Show me the scorecard - dates, times, etc. Did everyone have to be aware of your arbitrary 'start' of hositilites?

It doesn't matter.

You're ALL in it and playing the game now. Sorry if the rules weren't adequately explained to everyone... thats part of the game.

[Prophet 451]

37. Seconded

Far from Obama supporters being a cult, the Hillbot faction of Hillary's supporters are really starting to resemble a cult of personality. They're starting to remind me very strongly on those RWers who coined the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" to explain why anyone couldn't see the man as a living saint.

[Cheap_Trick]

50. more like a

cult with no personality

[Lilith Velkor]

56. Clinton Derangement Syndrome

is why anyone does not see her as a politician running for office, but as the foulest demon imaginable.

Keith Olbermann seems to have this malady. This is very distressing to the nice, moderate/Democrat older ladies who used to have fantasies about him. They thought he was on their side.

[Prophet 451]

57. Thank you, proved my point

Olbermann has mocked the Clinton campaign and their shifting goalposts, I've done the same myself. He's spoken about how Hillary is running her campaign but he has never demonised her. If you can't tell the difference between demonisation (of which, there has been a fair bit) and the kind of criticism, mocking or not, that Olbermann is doing then it is *you* who has the problem.

As I said, you remind me very strongly of the Bush backers who even now, insist that any criticism is treason or derangement.

[Lilith Velkor]

65. Pretending I said something I didn't doesn't prove anything except your bias

And mocking one campaign with excessive vitriol for doing what both campaigns are doing - as in, trying to win an election - is a sign of derangement to me. YMMV and all that.

Pulling the Bush backer card just means that your argument is weak.

[Prophet 451]

67. I didn't call you a Bush Backer

I realise that nuance seems to be a lost art these days but what I actually said was that those spouting "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" reminded me of the Bushies pushing "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Not that they are the same thing but that one aspect of their behaviour (that is, inventing a clinical term so as to avoid admitting the criticism might have a point) struck me as somewhat similar.

[Lilith Velkor]

71. You want to know another thing about Bushies?

They *all* have Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

That could have been a potent political weapon to bring to the general - but no. It's been made a mainstream thing, thanks to simple motherfuckers like Keith O.

I swear, this party must have a prehensile dick, the way it keeps fucking itself in the ass.

[madinmaryland]

41. I'm just surprised the Olbermann of all people has gotten sucked into

the trappings of the M$M. Why else would he spend hours devoted to Rev. Wright's connection to Obama, and Clintons statements about her trip to Bosnia. They really are small details, compared to the 50 Scandals called "Bushed" that he devotes time to. What about the passage of Retroactive immunity for the telcos?

For him to devote 20 minutes to tit-for-tat between the two democratic candidates seem a bit disingenuous to me.

[Beausoir]

42. I supported KO when he pointed out the crimes of the Bush regime. Now...he's stuck in a revolving

door of Clinton-phobia.

If he would get back to pounding the table about Bush and Cheney instead of Clinton, he might regain his lost viewers.

[Frisbee]

70. But who speaks for us...

Those of us who DO have Clinton-phobia?

[Skittles]

76. correct

something the OP cannot see because it favors his candidate - KO has INDEED become O'Reilly

[Prophet 451]

58. Unavoidable, to an extent

First off, let's be honest that neither of us know how much of KO's show is subjects of his choosing. That aside, it seems to be inevitible that if one works within the media, one will take on at least some trappings of it.

[hisownpetard]

45. Like you, Keith is the real McCoy. K&R!

[berni_mccoy]

75. Heh. Thanks!

[Overseas]

46. Thanks Bernie ! You spoke for me ! EOM

[Umbram]

48. That meany K.O. is preventing me from contorting my world view into a pretzel...*sulk*. (nt)

[berni_mccoy]

61. LOL!

How True.

[Stop Cornyn]

55. The worst thing you can say about KO is that he's supporting the Democratic nominee before Hillary

and some of her most ardent supporters have come to terms with the fact that it isn't her.

[democracy1st]

64. these Clintonites have kicked them all to the curb

[speedoo]

66. Another kick, Wish I could rec this again...

because the post it criticizes is complete nonsense.

[berni_mccoy]

72. Thanks. I appreciate it! :-D

[grantcart]

73. very good

[sasquatch]

74. About damned time this made it to the front page

:thumbsup:

[bigtree]

77. you just touched the tip of that KO post

I appears that you can't accept that someone can legitimately hold a different opinion of Olberman than you.

[berni_mccoy]

78. Right back at ya bigtree. And for what it's worth, a differing opinion is fine.

That is not what that poster was doing. She was putting up bogus arguments with NO evidence to Olbermann's bias.

[fascisthunter]

79. That Other Thread is one of the Most Embarrassing Threads

I've seen posted on DU. The poster should have just call KO Hitler.

[berni_mccoy]

80. Well, she's called me a Nazi book-burner before, so close enough.

[fascisthunter]

81. I Believe It... So Ridiculous

[Evergreen Emerald]

84. the extremists are Obama supporters who resort to

calling her every name imaginable. Those closed-minded zealots are not progressive.

I see that you are biased ("Obama haters") and are not objective in the least. Just looking objectively at the biased behavior of KO shows that he is not a journalist.

[Tarc]

87. bernie's just another obedient O-Bot, pay him no mind

The gall of this crowd calling out others for being "haters" is simply laughable. Team Obama poisoned the well of decency around here long ago.

[Arugula Latte]

85. Good post, berni!

That other post was so ridiculous ... Apparently to that poster, up is down, black is white, Olbermann is O'Reilly and we have ALWAYS been at war with Oceania.

[Veilex]

86. Rec'd

[Bluenorthwest]

88. I see a moment or two of Countdown

But I really lost respect for the show many months ago, when Edwards was still in the race. The pundit Lawrence O'Donnell was both calling on Edwards to drop out in one forum, then appearing on Olbermann to report that 'some were calling on Edwards to drop out'. Saying it and then reporting it was said 'by some'. This was a line I was unwilling to cross for O'Donnell, and I refuse to listen to him. Dispicable. Perhaps he never returned to the show, but I would not know. It was just the lowest gossip Rona Barrett style PR posing as journalism, if KO could not spot that for what it was, I really don't care much for his opinion about other things. The few minutes a week I do see seem to be almost all punditry and opinion, very little news, so I'm not missing much.
I really liked Kieth and he's not a righty and he's not O'Reilly, but I have no use for the musings of a guy who could be so blind as to fall for O'Donnell's trickery. Nothing to do with the current two, everything to do with biased, mislabled media voices throwing chum in our Primary swimming waters.

[Barrymores Ghost]

91. K&R - Great post, and thanks! n/t

[frylock]

93. thanks for setting up this honey pot..

this ignore feature is like heroin!

[FatDave]

101. Here's how I see it

And I didn't read all the responses, so please forgive me if somebody above has said similar.

I watched MSNBC pretty much all day yesterday. And all day long, the story was "Hillary momentum, Hillary can pull it off, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. Now here's an interview with Terry McAuliffe followed by an interview with Evan Bayh, and for balance, hears Chairman of the DLC, Harold Ford."

Then Countdown came on, and yes, Keith slammed Hillary.

But he slammed her with the truth. She has no path to victory. None, and it's a sham perpetuated by the media that she does.

Fact is Olbermann is, once again, one of only a tiny handful of media figures brave enough to tell the truth.

[barb162]

102. Do you remember him getting SO upset about Obama's passport

file but not Clinton's or McCain's files being viewed? That's the kind of shit that KO has been doing; the disgusting pandering to and for Obama. He did almost an entire show about Obama's file. What a sick pathetic fuck KO has become.

[tomp]

103. so by your logic, mccamy taylor is worse than hillary, right?

you'll get no argument out of me.

[LaStrega]

106. you get another kick my friend

[bjobotts]

107. Aren't you genralizing quit a bit? DUers? How many would that be?

[GMFORD]

109. There are a number of people

who have been hanging out at Hillaryis44 where they hatch up talking points against Obama, Obama supporters, media figures they think are Obama supporters, networks and cable stations they think are favorable to Obama and progressive blogs. They then rush off to spread these talking points around the blogosphere.

If you've never had the pleasure of visiting that supposed pro-Hillary site (which IMO is a rightwing front) be prepared for overt and rampant racism. At this point, the only media outlet they favor is Faux News which they claim is the (surprise surprise) only fair and balanced station.

[Jemmons]

110. Thanks for this.

I worry more and more about the general tendency to make a disconnect from reality in political "debate" and the "KO is BO" attack is one more attempt at this.

[Medusa]

116. Olbermann set himself up for this.

He decided he'd rather be a commentator/advocate than a journalist. So he began to openly cheer for one candidate and go after another. I'm an Obama fan so I'm not saying that his criticisim of HRC wasn't well-deserved or inaccurate, I believe it was well-deserved and accurate. But the thing is, Olbermann is still trying to insist he has a news program and he's a journalist when his actions show him to be anything but. He should be labeled like O'Reilly or Dobbs or one of those guys because that's what he is. I knew that one day the tide would turn against him and it has with the Hillary supporters. I can understand your anger at him. I'm angry at him for deciding to be an advocate instead of a journalist.

[Technodaoist]

117. Keith Olbermann is to Bill O'Relly, as...

Walter Kronkite is to Joseph Goebbels
John F. Kennedy is to Joe McCarthy
E.R. Murrow is to Father Coughlin
Left is to Right

[Jim Sagle]

121. Dupe

[Jim Sagle]

122. At this point KO ain't even a pimple on BillO's ass. Fuck'm.

[KSinTX]

125. By any standard, KO is staunchly behind Obama

He just doesn't have a "tingly" Tweety feeling or a Scarborough-esque "crush" on him. He isn't trying to "take him out" a la Hannity or screw the system as has Limpballs. I don't find it extreme for her supporters to note this bias any more than should Obama backers question Hannity's or Limpballs'.

[Patriot Abroad]

126. Keith Olberman isn't O'Reilly.

He's not a A fallafel crazed, deranged egotistical buffoon.

At least, I've never heard him mention fallafel in that "special" way that Bill feels about it . ..