Keith Olbermann's Special Comment 5-23-08
- Thread starter U2democrat
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
I have seen more Obama supporters write about his impending assassination than opponents (the weirdos who feel that their candidates are always the special ones that are destined be murdered).
On the plus side it should keep Clinton off the nomination.
And Olbermann seems like a tool.
On the plus side it should keep Clinton off the nomination.
And Olbermann seems like a tool.
MadelynIris
Refugee
Well if Obama is assinated in June, then we know who did it. 
MadelynIris
Refugee
Invoke it! Invoke it! Politically inexplicable. lol.
Bluer White
New Yorker
An unfortunate comment by Hillary. Sensationalism by Mr. Olberman (surprise!).
Hillary slipped up bigtime, but she is not the nominee, so let's all MoveOn.
Hillary slipped up bigtime, but she is not the nominee, so let's all MoveOn
.ntalwar
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Another good commentary 
.
.
AngelofHarlem01
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I'm loving Keith Olbermann's verbal ass kickings lately. He's summed up how a lot of people feel recently in his "Special Comments" to Bush the other week and now Hillary.
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
you know msnbc hates my computer 
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
Wow, he's like a left-wing equivalent of a Fox anchor, isn't he? 
deep
Blue Crack Addict
He has been getting progressively worse.
He is like a ranting and raving little child.
His phony hysterics are getting hard to watch.
This proves only one thing to me,
how insecure Obama supporters are about their candidate.
Everytime Hillary has brought up RFK it has only been in the context of the primary race going through June. And she has done so in the same sentense with her husband Bill Clinton campaigning through June.
Is she sending out signals that she is hoping someone will assassinate Bill Clinton?
He is like a ranting and raving little child.
His phony hysterics are getting hard to watch.
This proves only one thing to me,
how insecure Obama supporters are about their candidate.
Everytime Hillary has brought up RFK it has only been in the context of the primary race going through June. And she has done so in the same sentense with her husband Bill Clinton campaigning through June.
Is she sending out signals that she is hoping someone will assassinate Bill Clinton?
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Sympathy votes would push her over the edge.
Yeah. Just a weeeee bit melodramatic. I generally agree with his overall points, but he waaaaay overcooks 'em.
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
I prefer my news and political editorial commentary from less yelly, bombastic sources. I got halfway through that and had to turn it off - the man was practically foaming at the mouth.
I got halfway through that and had to turn it off - the man was practically foaming at the mouth.
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
I'm sorry I just had to laugh at this.
Yep, she's just acted as if she was standing with him, but really she's been plotting this for years.
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Biased, hypocritical, self-important?..... yeah.
But also smart and entertaining.
Bill O'Reilly, much?
It's funny how much MSNBC is starting to mirror Fox News, down to the 'tee'.
It's a proven business plan, why not?
But also smart and entertaining.
Bill O'Reilly, much?
It's funny how much MSNBC is starting to mirror Fox News, down to the 'tee'.
It's a proven business plan, why not?
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I'm loving Keith Olbermann's verbal ass kickings lately. He's summed up how a lot of people feel recently in his "Special Comments" to Bush the other week and now Hillary.
Here's the difference to me. A rather large difference, if you ask me.
When he started his self aggrandizing 'Special Comments' about Bush and how so many of the mainstream media seemed to sit by and just report and condescendingly wince etc. , he went out there and took a stand. I think he had a lot of people on his side. It wasn't a leap to make. I agreed with him outside of his arrogance.
Then, he started his war with Fox News, which is clearly biased by any measure of objectivity. I'm not sure he suspected his own network would begin to slip down that path. Of course, he was on board the Obama train, so who cares right?
Then you have the nature of his own show, where not a SINGLE person is brought on to 'disagree' with him or oppose his views.
Yet, he remains on the anti-"Fox is biased and incredible" train not realizing his own hypocrisy when he refuses to allow any so called "news analysis" that doesn't agree with him.
He's been anti-Clinton since the early part of the year and has essentially admitted as much. How objective is this toolbag if he can't be fair to his own 'party'? Fox and CNN didn't even cover this "story", yet it's on MSNBC as 'Breaking News'. Good call, Dan Abrams, run MSNBC as alternative to Fox. I bet their numbers grow. Newsflash: THE DEM PRIMARY IS OVER! That won't suffice Olberman, I'm sure. We are bound for another diatribe the likes of Shaun Hannity wouldn't even bother with.
Olberman is a self important, leftist hypocrite who is biased towards his wing.
Pretty much gospel at this point.
He's Bizarro O'Reilly. And yet the same people who watch him, villify Bill'O.
What's wrong with the American political system? People who don't see through the bullshit, just the same as O'Reilly or Hannity etc.
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html?hp
"Friday was not the first time Mrs. Clinton referred to the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in such a context. In March, she told Time magazine: “Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn’t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, defended her remarks in a telephone interview on Friday evening.
“I’ve heard her make that argument before,” Mr. Kennedy said, speaking on his cellphone as he drove to the family compound in Hyannis Port, Mass. “It sounds like she was invoking a familiar historical circumstance in support of her argument for continuing her campaign.”
"Friday was not the first time Mrs. Clinton referred to the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in such a context. In March, she told Time magazine: “Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn’t wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual.”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, defended her remarks in a telephone interview on Friday evening.
“I’ve heard her make that argument before,” Mr. Kennedy said, speaking on his cellphone as he drove to the family compound in Hyannis Port, Mass. “It sounds like she was invoking a familiar historical circumstance in support of her argument for continuing her campaign.”
I wonder when, in this primary campaign, you let go of logical reasoning.
Because if Olbermann's over-the-top rantings prove anything to me, it's that maybe he let it get to his head. But congrats on making it about Obama!
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Olbermann's "feud" with O'Reilly is laughable at this point. Olbermann is obsessed. He talks about him almost every night. I sense either jealousy or a little bit of a crush. He wishes he was O'Reilly, who triples Olbermann's ratings nightly. Not only that, Olbermann's show is the most watched show on MSNBC, yet still gets beaten every night by 3 Fox News shows. I'd be angry all the time, too.
Not only does he never have anyone who disagrees with him, but he has the exact same people on all the time. I bet I can predict next week's guests: Howard Fineman, Johnathan Alter, Rachel Maddow, Eugene Robinson. I could probably predict his worst persons, too.
INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
AngelofHarlem01
Rock n' Roll Doggie
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Olbermann's not that buff.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
That guy is incredibly annoying. I can understand now why people prefer to watch O'Reilly.
Bono's shades
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I still watch Countdown every night, but Keith is really beginning to get on my nerves. I think he has started to believe the hype. I adored his special comments when he first started doing them, and no matter what I will always get a kick out of him giving that waste of space Bill O'Reilly a much-deserved smackdown. But even though what Hillary said was nonsensical at best and truly tasteless at worst (especially after her non-apology apology) I'm not sure it merited that level of self-righteous ranting. Calling her out on it? Fine. But a Special Comment? Whatever, Keith.
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I prefer my news and political editorial commentary from less yelly, bombastic sources.
I really think the hysteria over Clinton's latest comments is way, way overblown. She was clumsy in what she said. That is really all.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
Add me to the list of people who find Olbermann to be a blowhard who's a bit too fond of hearing himself talk and has bought into his own hype.
Jeannieco
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
You know, as an Obama supporter I read her quote and thought, ok, she shouldn't have said that and she apologized so just let it go. I am all about the peacemaking...
Then I found out she had said it twice before.....so I think
Keith Olbermann is exactly right to blow his fuse over this.
Did he over-react? Ok, yes, maybe he did, but like he said her lame excuse for an apology doesn't cut it. She never once said she was sorry for the assasination remark/reference and not once did she directly apologize to Obama for insinuating his untimely demise. Not once, but 3 times. It's like she takes great joy in rubbing salt on an old wound and then runs to her corner crying screaming."what's the big deal and why is everybody picking on me? ". Come on Hillary, you are in denile and it's pathetic and sad and it's time for you and your husband to stop your behind the scenes bullying to try and strong arm your way into the VP slot.
***********
Here is an opinion from a blog on the fight for the VP slot and the antics the Clinton's are employing.
From the blog, Obsidian Wings
Obsidian Wings: Clinton Campaign Threatens "Open Civil War"
Clinton Campaign Threatens "Open Civil War"
by hilzoy
CNN is reporting that the Clinton and Obama campaign are "in formal talks" about ending her campaign.
I don't have a transcript to post, unfortunately. It's sourced to "Hillary Clinton's inner circle"; the Obama campaign denies that there are talks. "Clinton's inner circle", whoever that might be, is quoted as saying that they are "pushing for some sort of graceful exit strategy", and see three options. The first is that Obama chooses someone else to be Vice President; the second is that Obama publicly offers the VP slot to her and she declines; the third is that somehow Obama and Clinton get together personally and work something out. They don't say much about option three. Option two seems not to be working: they claim that the Obama people are worried that she might just take the VP slot. But it's what they say about the first that's really striking.
They think that for Obama to choose someone else as his running mate would be "a total dismissal", and "totally unacceptable to their camp, one of them saying that it could mean open civil war within the party," and that "it wouldn't mean that Clinton wouldn't campaign for Obama -- she would -- but she would do so like Bill Clinton campaigned for Al Gore, quite aloof. They do not believe that this would be acceptable."
I have been thinking about Clinton's conduct ever since she compared her efforts to get the Florida and Michigan votes counted to abolitionists, suffragists, and the current crisis in Zimbabwe. I agree with Josh Marshall that her attempts to gin up resentment and a sense that the nomination was stolen from her are toxic. Even Ezra Klein, who has been a lot more open to Clinton than many people, has concluded that she is trying to ensure that Obama loses. Since then, there have been a lot of stories wondering what on earth she is up to. And while I haven't heard what the NYPost describes as a "Groundswell Of Calls For O-Hill Union", there has definitely been a groundswell of stories about that alleged groundswell, much of which seems to be coming from the Clinton campaign itself. There have also been a lot of stories asking: what does Obama need to do to keep her on board?
Note what's missing here: any sense that Clinton herself is a responsible moral agent. People are writing about her as though she were a bomb that needed to be expertly defused, as opposed to a person who can govern her own life, and is responsible for her own choices.
I am aware that it must be hard to face the fact that you've lost. But it became clear that she was not going to win the nomination months ago -- I would say after Wisconsin, but certainly after Texas. Moreover, this is not unprecedented. People lose the nomination every four years. Most of the time, they do not stay on until it is mathematically impossible for them to win; they leave when it has become clear that they will not win. They do not complain about disenfranchising all the states with later primaries, they do not threaten to keep their supporters home, and they certainly do not threaten "open civil war" if they don't get nominated for Vice President. On those rare occasions when some candidate does this in the absence of some truly monumental issue, we normally think that that candidate is a narcissistic and unprincipled person who has just shown why s/he should never, ever be President.
There is absolutely no reason not to apply these same standards to Hillary Clinton. Right now, instead of floating demands in the press and comparing herself to abolitionists and suffragists, she could be telling her supporters that she lost fair and square; that while there was a lot of sexism in the campaign, there was racism as well, and that sexism does not explain why a candidate with literally every institutional advantage over her opponent lost the nomination. She could be reaching out to the voters who supported her in places where Obama has had trouble, and urging them to vote for him. She could, in a word, be doing the right thing: trying to earn that respect she seems to want.
Instead, she's throwing tantrums, making demands that she has no right to make, and threatening civil war.
I can't imagine a better demonstration of why she should not be President or Vice President. Nor can I imagine a better demonstration of why some of us who are committed feminists are not happy with her as our standard-bearer. She lost. It happens. If she were an adult or a professional, she would deal with it. Apparently, she is neither.
Posted by hilzoy at 11:04 AM in Politics | Permalink
Then I found out she had said it twice before.....so I think
Keith Olbermann is exactly right to blow his fuse over this.
Did he over-react? Ok, yes, maybe he did, but like he said her lame excuse for an apology doesn't cut it. She never once said she was sorry for the assasination remark/reference and not once did she directly apologize to Obama for insinuating his untimely demise. Not once, but 3 times. It's like she takes great joy in rubbing salt on an old wound and then runs to her corner crying screaming."what's the big deal and why is everybody picking on me? ". Come on Hillary, you are in denile and it's pathetic and sad and it's time for you and your husband to stop your behind the scenes bullying to try and strong arm your way into the VP slot.
***********
Here is an opinion from a blog on the fight for the VP slot and the antics the Clinton's are employing.
From the blog, Obsidian Wings
Obsidian Wings: Clinton Campaign Threatens "Open Civil War"
Clinton Campaign Threatens "Open Civil War"
by hilzoy
CNN is reporting that the Clinton and Obama campaign are "in formal talks" about ending her campaign.
I don't have a transcript to post, unfortunately. It's sourced to "Hillary Clinton's inner circle"; the Obama campaign denies that there are talks. "Clinton's inner circle", whoever that might be, is quoted as saying that they are "pushing for some sort of graceful exit strategy", and see three options. The first is that Obama chooses someone else to be Vice President; the second is that Obama publicly offers the VP slot to her and she declines; the third is that somehow Obama and Clinton get together personally and work something out. They don't say much about option three. Option two seems not to be working: they claim that the Obama people are worried that she might just take the VP slot. But it's what they say about the first that's really striking.
They think that for Obama to choose someone else as his running mate would be "a total dismissal", and "totally unacceptable to their camp, one of them saying that it could mean open civil war within the party," and that "it wouldn't mean that Clinton wouldn't campaign for Obama -- she would -- but she would do so like Bill Clinton campaigned for Al Gore, quite aloof. They do not believe that this would be acceptable."
I have been thinking about Clinton's conduct ever since she compared her efforts to get the Florida and Michigan votes counted to abolitionists, suffragists, and the current crisis in Zimbabwe. I agree with Josh Marshall that her attempts to gin up resentment and a sense that the nomination was stolen from her are toxic. Even Ezra Klein, who has been a lot more open to Clinton than many people, has concluded that she is trying to ensure that Obama loses. Since then, there have been a lot of stories wondering what on earth she is up to. And while I haven't heard what the NYPost describes as a "Groundswell Of Calls For O-Hill Union", there has definitely been a groundswell of stories about that alleged groundswell, much of which seems to be coming from the Clinton campaign itself. There have also been a lot of stories asking: what does Obama need to do to keep her on board?
Note what's missing here: any sense that Clinton herself is a responsible moral agent. People are writing about her as though she were a bomb that needed to be expertly defused, as opposed to a person who can govern her own life, and is responsible for her own choices.
I am aware that it must be hard to face the fact that you've lost. But it became clear that she was not going to win the nomination months ago -- I would say after Wisconsin, but certainly after Texas. Moreover, this is not unprecedented. People lose the nomination every four years. Most of the time, they do not stay on until it is mathematically impossible for them to win; they leave when it has become clear that they will not win. They do not complain about disenfranchising all the states with later primaries, they do not threaten to keep their supporters home, and they certainly do not threaten "open civil war" if they don't get nominated for Vice President. On those rare occasions when some candidate does this in the absence of some truly monumental issue, we normally think that that candidate is a narcissistic and unprincipled person who has just shown why s/he should never, ever be President.
There is absolutely no reason not to apply these same standards to Hillary Clinton. Right now, instead of floating demands in the press and comparing herself to abolitionists and suffragists, she could be telling her supporters that she lost fair and square; that while there was a lot of sexism in the campaign, there was racism as well, and that sexism does not explain why a candidate with literally every institutional advantage over her opponent lost the nomination. She could be reaching out to the voters who supported her in places where Obama has had trouble, and urging them to vote for him. She could, in a word, be doing the right thing: trying to earn that respect she seems to want.
Instead, she's throwing tantrums, making demands that she has no right to make, and threatening civil war.
I can't imagine a better demonstration of why she should not be President or Vice President. Nor can I imagine a better demonstration of why some of us who are committed feminists are not happy with her as our standard-bearer. She lost. It happens. If she were an adult or a professional, she would deal with it. Apparently, she is neither.
Posted by hilzoy at 11:04 AM in Politics | Permalink
There ain't no maybe about it. His reaction is clearly over the top and out of proportion to the situation.
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
I don't get MSNBC, I only have CNN. I know someone said that his rants have gotten worse lately, but is he this over-the-top about everything?
i liked keith olbermann a lot more when his mom was getting balls off the face from chuck knoblauch.
Similar threads
