Keith Olbermann Blows Last Remaining Gasket

Tim Russert made an interesting point the other day on MSNBC which has kind of become the 'MSNBC defense' when they are charged with favortism toward Obama. Russert said something to the tune of - It's not favoritism, it's the (delegate) math. If it is seemingly impossible for Hillary to win, is it 'bias' to claim that it is seemingly impossible for her to win?

I thought that was a good question and it strangely made me think of the debate over teaching intelligent design in public schools. You know, 'should public schools teach that it is possible that God created the universe with a plan in mind and that this plan is sometimes seen as evolution?'

Well, evolution is a theory that is generally accepted as true (Obama seems almost sure to get the nomination and there is a lot of evidence to support this) and intelligent design is a theory which may or may not be true but has not yet been proved (It is possible Hillary Clinton may get the nomination although no one has revealed how she realistically can).

Is it ok to sell a theory to the public which has not been proved and may or may not be true? Is it bias to only broadcast the theory which has been proved? Should news organizations have the right to determine which theory they want to sell to their viewers?

I don't know the answers, but they seem like interesting questions to ponder.

@D_L: I think Russert makes a good point to an extent. Hillary's partisans have lumped together some things that are, or at least may be, actual bias with other things that are simply the reporting of uncomfortable facts. He's absolutely right: no one is obligated to pretend that she has a better shot at the nomination than she does simply in the interest of "fairness." But there's also the fact that there was runaway speculation that Hillary was about to get out of the race (or should) even before the New Hampshire primary.

Of course, there's another conflation going on there, which is that the people making the case for anti-Hillary bias conflate punditry (Hillary *should* get out of the race) with simple reporting analysis (Hillary has little chance of winning) and treating them like the same thing.

I watched the clip of Hillary talking about RFK. How in God's name could any reasonable person draw a conclusion that it was a reference to the possibility of Obama being killed? That is a stretch beyond imagination. I think the pundits just needed something to talk about. She was giving examples of past Democratic primaries stretching into June. Reminding people of a watermark date in history that occurred during a primary in JUNE was simply fixing a date in time for people. Along the lines of, "hey, remember that RFK was killed during a primary.....in JUNE.....why should I get out when others have lasted this long?" This was much ado about absolutely nothing. Now, had she said that she is staying in because other candidates have been killed during a primary and that Obama's death would cause things to work in her favor, that would be different. But again, a reasonable person watching her make the comment would have to stretch outside the bounds of reality to draw that conclusion.

Being 'unbiased' is not the same thing as ignoring reality. If there is no way that Hilary could actually get the nomination (sans major tragedy), they I think that commentators have every right to remind her where the door is. She isn't entitled to having half the networks stick up for her just because she really wants to run, not if she doesn't have the votes to back it up. And she needs to stop referring to assassinations (that's like 4 times now she's made casual references to assassinations). Basically, the only chance she has of getting the nomination is if something happens to Obama in the meantime. And that is obvious - she knows it and we know it. So when she lists reasons for her to stay in, and uses an assassination of a past candidate as one of those reasons, it is just really transparent. I was completely horrified when I went and listened to what she said, the meaning was clear. It was more than poor taste, it was nasty. My only hope is that he doesn't include her on the ticket.

As I've said before, most talking heads drive me nuts whether I agree with them or not - Keith continues to be obnoxious even when I completely agree with what he says - cause he's smug and aggressive and cocky.

Although - again - at what point does representing reality actually overcome the need for political correctness? I think it is very dangerous, this mix of politics and entertainment. I do not approve of the fake "balance" that results - where taking a critical look at a politician gives someone the cloud of "bias". Without being able to critically examine those who seek or hold power, what use is the media in the first place? Now it is like journalists are expected to pay superficial lip service to both sides, and critical engagement brands one as "unbalanced" or "biased". Were the reporters who broke the Watergate stories "biased" against the Nixon administration simply because they sought to reveal the reality of political corruption and failings? No. They were reporters doing their part to speak the truth and let the people know what the government was doing behind their backs. But now reporters who try to raise awareness of all the corrupt crap that led to this stupid war have "liberal biases" and "agendas". So do journalists who try to bring attention to the environmental destruction, as well as the constitutional erosion, that has happened under this administration. I have no faith in the mainstream media to cover politics properly, which is why I tend not to watch mainstream media coverage of anything substantial.

Obermann's blast was entirely justified, it was Hillary's maniacal and too-clever-by-half (hint, hint, nut cases out there) assassination balloon that deserves universal scorn and condemnation.

I'm probably guilty of enjoying, a little too much, Olbermann's comments about Republicans and Chris Matthews not very well disguised, partisanship. But the amount of disrespect and misogynistic ridicule of Hillary and the condemnation of her words whenever possible while either excusing or praising Obama became more than I could stomach. Regardless of the user name, I am a woman and I can no longer watch MSNBC.

I found Keith's comment to be a little over the top, as his special comments usually are. Was this a valid issue on which to offer a special comment? I don't think so, but I did truly enjoy and think the rest of the country needed to hear his recitation of the litany of sins Hillary has committed in the name of winning. Whether or not she meant to suggest a possible assassination attempt on Obama will be food for pundits, but everyone must see by now that she will stoop to the lowest level possible. Please find a way to make her go away.

@Gail - echo that! Well said.

@Gail: "I found Keith's comment to be a little over the top, as his special comments usually are. Was this a valid issue on which to offer a special comment? I don't think so..."

This is actually a better way of putting one point I was trying to make myself. As I've blogged before, I voted for Obama in the primary, so I'm probably particularly disposed to agree with Olbermann. But when he lowers the bar this much for his "special comments," well, they become less special. He starts to sound like someone who's looking for excuses to be outraged.

(Of course, I'm not a mindreader, so for all I know he genuinely is outraged; that doesn't mean he shouldn't have a sense of proportion when it comes to how outrageous each outrage is.)

As a religious Daily Show/Colbert viewer (and Obama voter), I think you're right that while the frequency of jokes isn't off, the content/accuracy is skewed. Even on SNL, Hillary's just easier to lampoon/parody than Obama for the very reasons that she's (I'll say it) lost. She's an unabashedly constructed politician out to win regardless of the cost. For some people, that makes her electable, but, apparently, to others, that shows what's wrong with the political system.

Personally, I wonder how many people actually watched Olbermann when he first made his comments. Sure it was an overreaction, but most of us don't really care what he says most nights; why should this be different? (Sure, expectations that he should know better. But I guess I've already given up on the media, in that regard).

Right on, Mr. Poniewozik. Olbermann has become
a blathering parody of himself. And just as
Clinton was about to get my sympathetic vote
because of biased, diarrhea-mouthed, media
fat-heads like Olbermann, she, Clinton,
makes the "RFK statement. " Whose the 3rd party
candidate? And lead me to a NEW TV news
affiliate 'cause like many other Americans,
I've had enough and will be tuning out to all
of the above.

"I watched the clip of Hillary talking about RFK. How in God's name could any reasonable person draw a conclusion that it was a reference to the possibility of Obama being killed?"

She said "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California".

I can see how it would be difficult to draw an inference.

Olbermann wins every douche-off. How can anyone still take him seriously?

> He starts to sound like someone who's looking for excuses to be outraged.

You just noticed this? It's been true for a long, long time.

Is this for real? She mentioned Kennedy's assassination in June while justifying her staying in the fight against a candidate who many fear may be assassinated. The only outrage is that so many people think that it is ok to speak the way she did. Is it just ok because Clinton says so? And you all complain about media bias for Obama? Sheesh.

@Middle Road - Thank you!!! My thoughts as well. It was a completely transparent statement that everyone should be upset about. I am so surprised by how many people are failing to make the logical connection between saying "I'm staying in the race because in the past an inspiring leader was assassinated in June" and "I'm staying in the race because in the past an inspiring leader was assassinated in June, and that might happen again". That was inexcusable, whatever her intention, although everything she says is so calculated that I cannot imagine that she didn't realize what she was saying. And that is really scary. I was nearly willing to give her the benefit of the doubt anyway until her fake apology, but that was just so pitiful I could barely listen to it. 'I'm sorry if anyone got offended by what I said' is not the same thing as being actually sorry that she said it in the first place.

Olbermann is exactly the same as Hannity or any other extreme partisan. They both get offended at the drop of a hat. I mean that literally, incidentally. I'm sure there is an actual hat somewhere that, if dropped, would offend one and bring joy to the other.

I understand the concern that people have about Obama being assassinated, but I don't think he's at much more risk than a normal candidate. Theoretically, he's at more risk than McCain or Clinton, but I'm not sure he's at more risk than President Bush currently (from ultra-lefties). Or President Clinton during the impeachment (from ultra-righties). Or President Reagan during the collapse of the Soviet Union (from hard-line communists). Nonetheless, the lesson for future politicians is that referencing the assasination of previous candidates while discussing your chances vs. your opponenet is really poor form.

KO's rant can only be described as histrionic, voluble, and quintessentially lilliputian. He has become the turd in his own punchbowl.

Oh, and Keith, let's remember that D-Day was in June.

why don't we assume, just for arguments sake, that hillary is a man. would all these perceived slights be palatable, exceptable, believable? would all these women, and i am one, be going ballistic? i don't think so.

if you can't run with the big dogs... sit on the porch.

you can not have it both ways. you can not be 'tuff' and at the same time call foul, whip out your hankie and cry. it doesn't work that way, the world does not work that way.

if you want to play 'hardball' you have to play by the rules, and when you get knocked down, you get back up and keep on going.

hillary keeps on going, but she calls more time outs, argues with the refs, and has the fans down on the field throwing beer cans at each other.

keith, i disagree.

much ado about nothing

i do not agree with your basic premise that it is 'much ado about nothing.' hillary clinton is a word smith, hillary clinton was becoming irrelevant, hillary clinton was being ignored. any attention is better than NO attention... this brought her base and women back to defend her in droves.

now a man might not notice this but, when hillary was interviewed and then came out to make her less than abject apology, gone were the easter egg colored pant suits, gone was the bright red lipstick, gone was the blush... so what did the pundits say, she didn't look herself, she looked depressed, shaken and sad. of course she did... she worked hard to look like that. she has also taken acting lessons.

every little detail of that woman is scripted, from what she has on, the makeup she wears, the obligatory upbeat smile, the waving and pointing to no one there... this was no mistake. this was no over reaction to a misinterpretation, this was a reaction to a deliberate ploy on the part of hillary clinton.

why did she have to mention that kennedy was assassinated in june, was it not sufficient to simply say he won the primary in ca in early june? what about carter, kennedy, mondale? we all know that the primaries started much later, so right there she is putting forth a skewed version of why she should still be in the race.

as to why it didn't create an uproar when she initially threw it out for public consumption? well, you keep throwing s**t on the wall and hopefully at some point some of it will stick.

as to why? our contractor was discussing the upcoming election with me. he said that he really liked obama but he was not voting for him as he did not want to see him shot... i was stunned. i have then heard that exact same sentiment at least 4 more times. i am sure that hillary is well aware of this. i am sure the supers are well aware of this.

so, maybe to a 'rational' mind the comment did not make sense if deliberate but, the clinton's are not only rational, they are well aware of the subliminal.

@James - That's a good point. Supporters on both sides are packaging logic with opinion and selling it as truth and there is enormous danger in that.

I do remember pundits asking if Hillary's run was over after Iowa, but I'm not sure that was as much an effort to push her out of the race as an overreaction to the surprise of Obama's victory. Pundits hate to be wrong (calling Florida early in 2000) and overcompensate when caught prognosticating events that do not happen (CNN refusing to call races early for years).

I think I agree with everything else you said.

Sorry folks, I just don't see it and I'm no Hillary fan. Context is everything and the context wasn't what could happen to help you win the nomination. The context was continuing on in the primary into June. She brought up a couple of precedents of primaries rolling into June, one of which was when RFK was killed while campaigning on the trail in JUNE. Context.

And yes, she is a coniving plolitician....but I don't buy the Hannity, O'Reilly, Boortz stuff of how evil she is and every word is programmed. Good God, so is every other politician.

I just watched the clip - I hadn't watched it before, and after listening I actually thought that there was justification for all of his main points, and he backed up what he was saying in the context of her pattern of behavior. It was a pretty fair commentary - I wouldn't call it "objective" by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm assuming that commentaries are usually based on the commentator's opinion anyway. It was very theatrical, very preachy, very "get folks riled up" in its tone, which I could seriously do without, cause I can't stand that crap. But, stepping back, I'm surprised that more people aren't indignant about her campaign behavior.

However, I'm sitting here thinking about this whole thing, and I'm wondering about something. Keith O kept saying there at the end stuff like: you just don't talk about that, you just don't use that word. And the subject is definitely taboo, with good social and legal reasons for folks not talking about it. Threatening speech receives less legal protection, so say the courts, plus nobody wants to be on a watchlist. And I think that she shouldn't ever have said it, but now that its said what can be done? How does a politician deal with an issue they aren't supposed to talk about? Was there something she could have done at that point (could she have pulled an Obama?) to open up dialogue about a painful time in the country's past, to address the dangers of being a public figure, to revisit a time of idealism betrayed, or whatever? Or would that only get her in more trouble? Was there a way she could have approached the apology (or a way she still could) that would have been more redemptive? Or would any such approach just have sealed her fate by acknowledging that there was, indeed, this other interpretation of her words? Or is the Other A Word just something so inappropriate to discuss that she's better off ignoring it altogether, even if some people aren't satisfied with her response? Sorry for rambling, its been a long day.

Keith is a pure and simple "Obama campaign worker" at this point. No Hillary supporters watch anymore and all he does is alienate us further from Mr. Obama with his constant hatred of all things Clinton. He doesn't even have to have a real issue anymore. He, like Chris Matthews, has resorted to "reading the Clinton's mind" Bringing on people to talk about their "hidden agendas" and their "code words" It's laughable to those who follow daily but to those that do not.....it's poison.

I am a liberal Democrat who lives in suburban NYC. Keith is an embarrassment to us liberals. He has turned into a left wing version of Anne Coulter/Rush Limbaugh. When I mocked those so called right wing pundits, I always was proud to say that those of us on the left were above those games. Olbermann has brought us down even further than he perceives Senator Clinton to have done.

For my money, MSNBC should replace him with Rachel Maddow. She gets the same message across with grace, warmth and intelligence!

Rachel Maddow really annoys me for some strange reason. She seems nice, but I could never watch her regularly.

Many see clearly that the Clinton nomination rationale is being given legitimacy the same way the Iraq War was given legitimacy by the MSM.

Especially in light of Scott McClellan's affirmation that the MSM let down the country by not doing its job with a critical eye to truth vis a vis Iraq, I imagine journalists who value their word, like Olbermann and Mathews, are determined not to be dragged into another tissue of lies - not spin, just plain lies.

Olbermann may be passionate, but he does not make up things out of thin air. He is left and unashamed - it's about time we had a chance to hear a strong, articulate cable voice on the left.

Like most viewers, I taken in a bit of everyone who is gabbing on all the cable channels. The folks at MSNBC are sustaining a who demographic of disenfranchised folks who have tolerated the media manipulation of the Bush-Clinton White House long enough.

Give us our moment, please…I'm sure things will eventually swing back the other way.

We value Olbermann because he had the guts to speak out when every one else played it safe and helped lead us into one fine mess via Bush.

Yes, he was incensed by Clinton's RFK remarks. I, myself, had my stomach flip and the blood drain out of my head when I heard them…if Hillary doesn't realize that the RFK assassination remains the tenderest of issues, she is really disconnected.

You don't remember the horror of a beloved figure dying unless your purpose is to lament that loss.

Keith is giving voice to many of the frustrations that the rest of us experience, thanks to total, unmitigated and murderous lies of the Bush Administration (which have been verified in Scott McLellan's book, apparently) and so he can be forgiven for being over the top, IMHO. Keith is also the first real sane opposition to all of the years of buffoonery from Rush, Bill O', Hannity and the others. I take exception to this talk of mysogynism, tho. While I acknowledge that Mrs. Clinton has been the recipient of some negative sentiment because she is a woman, I reject out of hand the notion that anyone who opposes her is mysoginistic.

I suspect that I am not the only one opposed to Hilary on the grounds that she is a woman - I oppose her because she represents a slash-and-burn, unethical approach to politics - and a whining reluctance to accept self-responsibility - that are a) just dead wrong and b) bad examples to younger women - and men! I can reel off any number of woman for whom I would vote for President - Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, even Nancy Pelosi and, here in New York, Nita Lowey. And, heck, even though she is a Republican, I would give the benefit of the doubt to Olympia Snowe from Maine.

But to suggest that Hilary is the recipient of ALL of this vitriol because she is a woman is misguided at best. It's not about her gender - it's about her soul. She has none. Besides, the stories surrounding her campaign - the chaos, the constant damage contorl, the arrogance - should give one pause. Would this be a model for her presidency? Uh, yay-uh. And, one more thing - the thought of Bill Clinton rattling around in the West Wing with nothing to do, as Mitt Romney put it, gives me pause. Bill is still jealous because Al Gore won the Nobel before he did, like he deserves it.

Ten minutes! Excessive, to say the least.

"Think about it: if you've found yourself suddenly irritated by any of the people or outlets I mentioned above this election, is it really they who've changed?"

Actually, in this case, I believe that KO has changed, to a degree. Evidence? When I switched over to FiOS TV, my region of New Jersey initially didn't offer MSNBC. So I had to go cold turkey on KO for many months. Lord, did I miss him (and some of the others on MSNBC). I actually found myself turning to the likes of . . . Bill-O! Not turning to his politics, mind you, but just "turning the channel" to him, just to see what he had to say. And surprise! He wasn't ALWAYS outrageous and stupid!

Eventually, FiOS gave me KO, and I was so happy to see and hear him again. Except that . . . something was different. In my opinion, he has genuinely become more polarizing as the primaries have continued.

I still enjoy KO and his show, and I still agree with most of his politics. But let's not forget JP's ultimate point:

"Or are they simply less charming when they're not confirming your comfortable beliefs?"

Exactly.

"Maybe, the only way to really understand how your idols sound from the other side is to actually find yourself on the other side of them."

Exactly again. Well written, JP.

Thank you so much for your wonderful article. It expressed almost exactly what I was feeling during that overlong and definitively overwrought "special comment" last week. Whew. Someone said it. Thank you!

When the first "special comment" was aired it was stunning, shocking, engaging. It was --rightfully-- newsworthy. Alas, someone at MSNBC took KO aside and said "You're our leftie go-to guy, have at it, Babe." And so he did. Damn shame.

That last "special comment" was anything but special. I couldn't find the remote so I left the room. The blush is off the rose as far as my romance with Kieth goes, too. Over. Done. I really LIKED having a voice of reason on the left. And it's gone.

By the way, when I heard the comments about RFK, my first thought was "oh, it's the anniversary, of course she has to work that in some way." I never ever ever had those sinister "A-Word" thoughts until it was played up so much.

Anyway, thanks again James. You're right, I've seen it from the other side, and he's as smug and self-righteous as Ann Coulter. Ewwww.

Keith, as usual, was right. Hillary is giving women, of which I am one, a bad name. Having lived through the chaos of 1968 assasination is no trivial thing to be bandied about. We have had too many assasinations. Hillary can't quit because of her ego, plain and simple. i'm an old woman and I love Keith and hope he keeps giving them hell. Come on ladies we are made of tougher stuff.

Keith Olbermann went way over the line. I was one his staunchest admirers from day one. This vitriolic gasket blown the other night was uncalled for. He should save that tenacity for Bush and Cheney.

Untill he has the guts to apoligize to her and his audience I will have no respect for him as a journalist.

I have been a fan of Mr. O for many years.

Recently, I stopped listening to the first half of the program which seemed to me to be Hillary bashing, which was very boring and unkind. I would fast forward to the second half.

I discovered after his latest special comment which I really though was a silly waste of my time and his, he has not been doing it as much any more. Has he seen the light?

I think he should be man enough to admit it.

"...every time he turns up the volume to 11 like this lately, he sounds like just another of the cable gasbags he used to be a corrective to."

To you he may sound like this, James, but not to many others of us, who are grateful for a clarion voice brave enough to rise above a sea of print and media "journalists" whose moral compass resembles a hang glider.

To describe Hillary's comment as "ill-advised" is overly generous. As Edward R. Murrow said, "Most truths are so naked that people feel sorry for them and cover them up, at least a little bit."

Journalists who find themselves taking Keith Olbermann to task rather than Senator Clinton - or God forbid maybe Liz Trotta - ought to examine their own reason for being in the game.

Comments Like Trotta's, or even Senator Clinton's, that can potentially "green light" the John Hinkley Jr.'s and Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme's of this world should never be uttered by those seriously contending for the Presidency - nor by anyone who purports to be a true journalist or commentator of the news.

It's sadder still when a journalist feels it is noble to take those to the woodshed who have the sense to see this and decry it, even if the volume is turned up to "11."

Keith Olberamnn has lost it. His apoplectic rants are pathetic, and the venom and hatred from some Obama supporters against Hillary Clinton is every bit as disconcerting to me as anything George Bush says or does.
This is not helping. We need a unified party. Obamas will win the nomination just chill the freak out and let the people vote, its only going to be one more week.

I still think the best solution is Hillary as VP but I know the haters will go nuts over that too, but he needs her to win.

It's ridiculous to compare Olbermann to Ann Coulter or Hannity.

Coulter and Hannity are LYING: in books, on tv, when they wake up in the morning, when they tell you it's raining outside. Disagree with Olbermann's tone all you want, but there is no factual dispute with what he says. He's not using misinformation and fallacy to persuade as Coulter and Hannity do.

The problem with Coulter and Hannity is not that they are loud and obnoxious. The problem is that they LIE. They make the public dumber.

P.S. @Disenfranchised_Libertarian...kind of a strange analogy, but I understand where you're coming from. Something to ponder, sure, but one correction, while you're pondering: intelligent design is not a scientific theory. You labeled evolution and intelligent design each as a 'theory'. Intelligent design may be a 'theory' in some sense of the word, but it is not a scientific theory, because it cannot be tested. Since it cannot be tested, it cannot be proven false or shown to be true based on scientific evidence. So when you say that it "has not yet been proved", well...it will never be proved, since there is no way to do so. As that relates to your analogy: you can prove or disprove Clinton's viability as a candidate by doing the math.

oberduck went way off base with his angry and vile attack on hillary. it was like he was defending his bestest friend from a bully.

and, you got blasted by the huffers for daring to speak out against a supporter of the guy you voted for.

be scared america. to disagree with the godhead and the obamagasmics is like being opposing religious fanatics in iraq. expect casualties.

I watched Olbermann's comment when it aired, and I cheered every single word. I've watched it several more times, and have shared it with others who were equally glad to see a moment (10 minutes, actually) of truth being spoken on Hillary's atrocious statement, especially in light of the fact that the majority of the media has perversely dismissed her statement up as a "historical reference," a "misstatement" or a "an unfortunate reference" due to campaign fatigue.

When I heard Olbermann speak on this, I heard truth, the same way others hear truth in the voice of Fox news. Were I to accidentally find myself on the Fox news station, I would simply change the channel. I invite others to do the same, if they are offended by what Olbermann has to say.

After 7 long, long years of hearing nearly zero dissenting media voices against the Bush agenda -especially between 2001 and 2006 -- I'm glad to see the return of at least a few *liberal* voices (e.g. Matthews and Olbermann). I am not nearly so offended by opposing viewpoints as I am by the attempt of some to silence or censor those viewpoints. There was a time, circa pre-2001, when dissenting viewpoints were not seen as criminal offenses against god and country but, rather, as part of our American rights and our patriotic duty.

What shall it be: Should we silence all dissenting media voices, or only those with a liberal bias?

I love Keith Olbermann. Preach it Keith! Please don't ever stop!

Yo James, I think you miss the point. Olbermann is a commentator and one of the few guys around that is a truth teller -- regardless of the consequences. I voted for Hillary in the CA primary, before I caught what the Obama movement really meant and realized that she ran an inept and arrogant campaign.

What has really been disappointing to me, besides the increasingly low and sordid behavior of the Hillary campaign, is the complete gutlessness of the media to call her on her Bull****. Win the popular vote? Michigan must be counted?? Only some states count?? Come on, I voted for her and used to have some respect for her, but these are ridiculous stretches of the truth that are so much like the kind of moronic crap that Bush, Cheney and Rove pull, that it is reason to declare her unfit to govern, at least as a Democrat. So when she comes out with this garbage about not being able to understand why people want her out, playing the victim, and engages in more fear mongering, somebody needs to call her on this hard. Most of the rest of you (the media) seem to be caught up in the excitement of the drama as opposed to the importance of the outcome.

So maybe what you need to consider is that if she wasn't making utterly stupid and outrageous comments, there would be no need for any outraged special comments. People watch Olbermann because he has the balls to call people out when they're morally repugnant, on behalf of all of us. You should be asking yourself why you have lower standards than he does.

@ludba and katzooks - THANK YOU! Echo that. I've got no problem with a commentator reflecting on whatever he/she wants, as long as it is based in truth. Olberman backed up what he was saying with facts - he layed out a documented pattern of behavior, examined the context, and reacted with indignation. I thought it was an appropriate stance for him to take, I'm glad someone got up and said it, and after listening to it several times I wouldn't have changed a word (it was at least a well-structured rant!).

Whether or not his rant was factually-grounded, he definitely adopted the preachy, smug, self-righteous tone of more problematic commentators that I can't stand. There certainly would have been ways he could have approached this topic that would have been less divisive and more constructive, but it doesn't come close to the obnoxiousness of Hannity, Coulter, Carlson, OReilly, Limbaugh, and whoever else I'm leaving out.

And it was TRUE.

Keith O used to be the only reason to watch MSNBC but for the last several months he has shown nothing but disdain and contempt for Cinton while finding ways to defend Obama at every point supported by his guests, most notalbly, Eugene Robinson from the Washington Post who also has demonstrated no objectivity. His special comments have ususully been over the top but because President Bush's behavior was so outrageous, it was easy to give him a pass, especially since so many in the media seemed to be less aggressive. Keith O has become a sad parody, turning up the volume on outrage and playing the role of the media hero who would slay all evil. The problem is that when he's interviewed Clinton or others on his shows, he's been incredibly weak and meek, which makes at best a hypocrite and at worst a coward. Whatever he is, he's lost this viewer.

"Olbermann is edging ever-closer to self-parody, or, worse, predictability. (As soon as the Clinton gaffe broke, blog commenters were wondering how ballistic he would go, and he obliged, and how.) Even if we concede his argument—that Clinton was at best callously and at worst intentionally suggesting she should stay in the race because Obama might be killed—every time he turns up the volume to 11 like this lately, he sounds like just another of the cable gasbags he used to be a corrective to."

Oh, I get it. Once you knuckleheads figure out that the feeble attempts to belittle K.O. will not silence him, the real swift-boating begins.

If you don't like the commentary, change the channel. If you don't like facts, stick your head in the sand and maybe the offending realities will go away -- maybe.

Remember way back when? Hillary Clinton was the inevitable, coronated candidate by all calculations. I supported her, then. Unadulterated support was about all you heard from Keith (though with raised brow), Chris or practically anyone else at MSNBC. Then from obscurity came Barack Obama with a message of real change (yes, I'm kinda tired of the phrase too, but it's vitally accurate)and he caught democrats fancy hither and yon. Billary knew a couple of weeks before Iowa they were in trouble there, that Obama was for real, so I think their mindset changed at that time. They had been challenged about the Clinton legacy and control of the party and they determined any strategy that would win and maintain their control would have to be employed. The often indefensible strategies began to unravel and become more desperate. Remember how many different faces Hillary began to wear? Then, Bill in South Carolina and from there, it just got more negative and personal. I think Keith and Chris not only noted this but became upset with it and it began to show more and more in their commentary. Keith's tone was not new, he's pounded Bush the same way--correctly. His innumeration of past Billary questionable tactics were correct. I think it is squarely in Hillary's lap that she gave all her critics so much ammunition to fire at her. After all, she rarely hesitated to fire at will at Obama whether 'as far as I know' on his 'muslim' status, or his not being qualified to be be president (but she and McSame were). I think Keith and Chris have lashed out hard at her for it. If you think they're too biased, go to Fox, the network that Hillary and McCauliffe proclaimed the "best". Thank you.

and what did you think when you heard Obama on this topic, or JFK Jr. on this topic, neither of them thought it was worthy of such a tirade, and if anyone's opinion should matter, I'd say its theirs.

The wakco Obama supporters are going to hurt him in the end, the likes of Keith Olberamnn and John Aravosis over at Americablog are dividing the party and in the end, raving lunatics are just raving lunatics, part of the problem not part of the solution.

We need UNITY In the Democratic party now!

Keith has lost it. My family and I cheered him until he got a contract as we bought and distributed dozens of his books. When he joined Matthews, Wolfe, Robinson and others dumping daily on Hillary we tried to figure out why. Once I read the 12/11/07 contract between Exelon and GE. I asked who benefits/followed the money and found the seed money for Obama's rise from Exelon (which only Michael Isokoff of Newsweek dared mention this week, unlike all others in the GE family which owns MSNBC, The Washington Post and Newsweek) who will provide nuclear reactors at taxpayer expense as voted on by Obama when Hillary refused to vote for such taxpayer expensed nuclear reactors. I began to see the plan. GE is losing a fortune; all those MSNBC jobs plus that of Eugene Robinson depend on GE going beyond divestiture of appliances to a more profitable state. Knowing who benefits explains Keith's change of mind, mission and heart. It was so disappointing to realize the Obama campagin will not answer questions about the Exelon/GE deal and Keith has totally lost his perspective as evidenced by his rant about Hillary. It began when she laughed at his stupid question during an on-air interview when he acted like a Dana Perino thereafter. The hate Hillary machine is well fueled in so many venues. I've been amazed at how effective it has been for months. Much of the public actually accepts all the lies. Orwell would understand; Keith does not, alas. I hope Michael Isokoff the brave one left in Newsweek keeps his job after daring to hint this week that he has clue about hate Hillary bits multiplying everywhere...James is spot on here.

Here is a response, in Keith's style to his Hillary / RFK rant:

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/25/special-comment-for-keith-olbermann/

Want to see what he should have said after Obama's Memorial Day Speech where Senator Obama claimed his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz?

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/28/a-special-commentary/

Thank you, James, for your perceptive and useful article. I see that I'm not the only one who has tuned out Olbermann, etc. I admit that I discovered your article on the Huffington Post, but I had to pass a lot of Obama fluff, and anti Clinton material before I got to it. Thanks, Ariana, for publishing it.

As a Clinton supporter who is now and always was prepared to support Obama I've been amazed by the violent anti-Clinton feelings from many pro-Obama people. These were the people, who along with many Hillary supporters, were thrilled by our wonderful luck in having two such wonderful candidates. Remember???

I've written Keith a few times, but I think it fell on deaf ears. I can't watch him any more.

In light of the other discussion going on about punditry, I want to qualify my comments here. I do not watch Keith Olberman's show, so I'm not speaking about HIS long-term pattern of behavior vis a vis Obama-Hilary coverage. If Keith is pulling punches with Obama in a transparent way (and Pulling Punches With Obama is a different thing from Making Valid Criticisms Against Hilary), I would consider a somewhat different issue, one which I couldn't speak to, not having been a regular viewer. But that's kinda hard for me to believe, from looking at a variety of sources my view is that Obama really has tended to handle things better throughout the campaign. Which is probably why he was able to come from nowhere and surpass her support as the campaign went on.

Given the fact that the overwhelming majority of on-line "pundits", anchors and host-types lean so far to the right I get a crick in my neck, and were such wimps that they sat passively by as we were marched off into a disgraceful war, Olbermann and Maddow are certainly refreshing. Too bad they can't be cloned and shipped off to CNN and Faux news.

Perhaps Olbermanns disgust with Clinton is that this is one of a long list of small cuts and insults that caused him to say enough. That mirrors my sentiments exactly.
Defeating the Republicans is paramount, Clinton who cannot win in a meaningful way, is an impediment. You who work for an organ that is staffed with a platoon of clowns would do well to get your house in order before looking out the window.

"These were the people, who along with many Hillary supporters, were thrilled by our wonderful luck in having two such wonderful candidates."

I didn't happen to fall into that category (I was too busy being cranky and cynical about having to choose between 2 pro-corporate candidates who didn't exactly match my opinions on most things), but the entire rest of my family did. We were all Hilary supporters back when she was first lady and folks were always hating on her for one reason or another - I defended her constantly back then. And when she started her own political career we were proud for her (actually, we were all defending her against accusations that she was nothing but a power-hungry monster who wanted nothing more than to become president one day and would stop at nothing to achieve that goal!!! Hmmm). She made a bunch of problematic decisions (my favorites include supporting the war and jumping on the anti-video game bandwagon), but my family was ready to support her anyway when she announced her candidacy - cause, hey, we gotta get the Republicans out, and she's better than them. And they all thought that Obama guy was pretty OK too. But we didn't know him - we knew her and the support was hers to lose.

Then the campaign actually started. And all the reasons that my family is now so vehemently and indignantly anti-Hilary were ALL included in what Keith said. There is serious outrage going around among people who had trusted her and defended her, because her pattern of behavior has been sufficiently problematic to engender that outrage. I didn't really tune in until recently, except to bitch about how much the election coverage was driving me crazy, so it was a big deal for me when I started seeing Obama in a different light, and realized that what he had to say really resonated with me, and that even though I don't agree with all of his stances, I have come to respect him as a person and as a leader. Hilary, however, receives NO MORE benefit of the doubt from me anymore because she's proved that she doesn't freaking deserve it. Simple as that. If she had acted with more integrity during the campaign, there would not be this angry contingent of disillusioned democrats who can't stand her anymore and don't want her anywhere near the ticket.

Sorry to just ramble - I tend to get unfocused by the end of the day.

Does anyone remember the olden days, when journalists WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO SUPPORT ANY CANDIDATE? When those who DID were vilified for corrupting journalistic standards? When the words "respected" and "journalist" were sometimes used right next to each other in sentences?

I'm not even as old as Obama, and I'm -- apparently -- a relic.

Hey James,

Good column, but I don't agree with you completely about KO. Although I've felt his special comments had been running a bit too long for a little while, I can't argue with KO's message on any of them. (In fact, they're probably better digested as written essays than long-form special comments for broadcast.)

The editor in me would tell KO, if I could, "Less is more..."

Having watched Countdown since the beginning, I've been well aware of KO's affection for the Clintons, at least until the 2008 primary season. Chalk up KO's disgust for HRC's latest poorly chosen comment to his profoundly deep disappointment of the Clintons' derisive "knife fight" election tactics against Obama that have tarnished their legacy and made a Obama supporter out of me...

One more thought, back to the original post.

James writes "Personalities and institutions that were once universally beloved by people who were sick of the Bush administration have either taken sides, or have been perceived to, splintering what used to be a unified and largely uncritical amen chorus."

Sorry to deviate from the focus on "media", but that brings up an interesting and important point. It is easy for us left-of-center folks to find temporary common ground against an administration as holistically destructive as Bush's. That's so easy, because the Bush Administration has been extreme enough to go against EVERYTHING we stand for as left-of-center folks - we can generally agree that things are SO FREAKING BAD that we should put our differences aside in the effort to get them out of power before they frak the environment, start WWIII, and run us into tyranny, or whatever the hell else is the logical conclusion of the current path. And that's all well and good in theory, and I reckon that it DOES need to happen at this moment in time. But putting aside differences doesn't mean that they aren't there. A lot of us are just as frustrated with the Democratic Party as we are with the Republican Party. The DP hasn't had its crap together for a long time, or Bush wouldn't have been elected in the first freaking place - the DP was bleeding progressive voters who had given up on working within the party by that point. And there has been a LOT of finger-pointing and resentment and blame among lefties since then (which can be summarized as follows: "Its your fault for not supporting the anti-Bush and wasting your vote" vs "its your fault for having a lame-ass sell-out party in the first place" aka "why are you entitled to my vote if you don't represent my views?"), and those tensions are still there. So the Democratic Party now seems to be a somewhat possibly temporary coalition of liberals and progressives who need a common enemy to come together. And what happens if we win the election? Then what happens with the party? Just support the party through the election, get us back into power, and we'll seriously look at these concerns. We'll seriously examine the party. After we get into power. That's what I've been hearing, and that would rock, but I'm not really buying it. I'm with them on this one, but without major changes I'm probably done with the party after this. I'm interested to see how that works out.

I'm not saying that there is a straight liberal/progressive split based on these candidates, I have no idea exactly how the split is falling out - demographics, geography, I'm sure there are too many factors to quantify in some simple formula. But I'm saying that the party was never particularly united in the first place, so it shouldn't have been difficult to predict the lack of in-party unity. There is obviously more than one type of democrat. And from what I'm hearing, there's more than one type of republican, and they're not all satisfied with the direction of their party either. I'm glad that folks on all sides are getting sick of hitting their heads against the limitations of a two-party system.

Back to the media, I'm glad that folks in positions where people listen to them are doing what they can to take a stand on this Hilary situation, because a lot of folks honestly think that she is endangering the main goal of the party for selfish reasons. If that further highlights already-existing in-party divisions, then maybe those divisions deserved serious attention anyway.

Get real. Keith is the best. She got caught speaking what she was thinking.

Olbermann is sure to have a starring role in Joe francis' next release, "Pundits Gone Wild."

By the way James P., your statement that "for the benefit of those of you directed here from HuffPo or elsewhere, I voted for Obama," is totally unnecessary. When you blog for "Time in association with CNN" that's a given. But do let us know if you vote for McCain in November. THAT would be a revelation.

The problem with Olbermann is his bias. Obama said in April his grandfather liberated Auschwitz this weekend it was his uncle now it's his great uncle and it was Buchenwald. Where is Olbermanns outrage over this? Was Obama suggesting that Hillary be put in a concentration camp? He mentioned one so he must be calling for her to be detained at Guantanamo Bay. Surely Olbermann could see this and where was his outrage. If you want the true time line on Hillary's RFK statements go to http://www.dailyhowler.com/ and read todays posting. Olbermann is an idiot who is in the tank for Bambi. He has no credibility left and if you look at his ratings since he has gone in the tank for Obama he has lost about half of his audience. Good serves the misogynist pig right. He's not even a good sportscaster.

Thank you for this article, Mr. Poniewozik, I agree with you. Mr. Olbermann has become a blowhard I no longer watch as I am boycotting MSNBC.

Thank you also to jeannekhan for your insightful post re follow the money.

I tune into Olbermann primarily to enjoy his guests and more in-depth coverage of political issues often ignored or under-reported by other news outlets, but I do it with reservations. Olbermann's attempts at humor (mocking conservative personalities, throwing his script in the air, "breaking the glass," and "Odd Ball" segment are tiresome and corny. His special comments have become so frequent that they've lost much of their punch, and they tend to come across more as angry rants than meaningful comments. I'm impressed by his obvious command of the language and historical recall, but I would much prefer to see a more sober and restrained Olbmermann who would gain more respect and credibility from a MSM that needs to heed his reminders about their failure to adequately question right-wing
failures and obstructionism.

Does anyone else feel like me that the beast is truly slouching towards Bethlehem? The falcon cannot hear the falconer. As the kid's say, 'This is the sign of the Apocalyse, the end is near.'

Herr Olberman reminds me of the little weaselly kid in class that hung out with the bullies and acted the shrillest of them all to compensate for his obvious deficiencies. You know that if you met him alone he could not handle himself. Karl Rove one-on-one would demolish Herr.

Everyone here is a lefty if not a liberal. I'm a right winger. My blood pressure goes through the roof when I watch El Herr. He is a short stack of pancakes.

I know that this is a very deliberative forum not for the casual drive-by grenadier so here it is--Hillary is going to win it, then McCain is going to beat her. The country is not going to vote for a Democratic congress and President, McCain will see to that.

Nice post, Jim. I've always liked Olbermann (and got really annoyed when MSNBC changed the broadcast times, because DirecTV seems to carry a feed that puts the show at an awkward hour). I generally think his special comments are spot-on. But I agree that this one was definitely an odd one to go after -- just a minor gaffe, really. (I was a local Obama delegate at the district level, but I certainly didn't read anything sinister in Clinton's odd statement.) A mistake for Keith, but he's allowed a slip or two, and hopefully if he gets enough "tough love" from this last special comment, he'll learn & save the vitriol for the bigger issues.

I wonder what will happen if and when Democrats stop attacking each other and really focus their ire on the Republicans again. Will "Obamabots" go back to reading Paul Krugman regularly? Will "Clintonistas" watch Keith Olbermann and read Frank Rich? Are such developments part of the healing process?

Keith Olberman and Randi Rhodes are true America heroes; who do not take the easy way out.

With refrence to balance here are the people who are for Hillary Clinton:

Fred Siegel-Sol Stern-Joe Klein-Joel Stein-Paul Krugman-Sid Blumenthal-ABC's George Stephanopolous-Michael Savage-Rush (20 million listeners) Limbaugh-David Ignatius-Fox'sWilliam Kristol-Steve Chapman-ABC's Charles Gibson-Fox's (McCarthy)Hannity-Fox's Allan (puny defense of Obama) Colmes-MSNBC's Joe Scarborough-Fox's Newt Gingrich-ABC's Cokie Roberts-ABC's George Will-MSNB's Dan Abarams, MSNBC's Alex Witt, CNN's Wolf Blitzer, MSNBC's Pat Buchanen are all for Hillary Clinton.

Poniewozik has drank the Clinton KoolAide that the press is unfair to Clinton while completely overlooking the 10 week all out unrelenting blitzkreig assault on Obama by Sean Hannity.

His logic makes complete sense only if you overlook all the facts.

Biased Much?

Why don't you just admit it, you're a damn conservative and you're writing this to slam Olbermann as a Liberal.

You should lose your job.

Re Eugene Robinson's articlem he was continuing, after 3 days, to mischaracterize her answer to the specific question why people (like Robinson) would be asking her, even before April, why she was still in the race, and she gave two instances of primaries very active "in JUNE" and said she didn't understand it - the urgency to get her out. She also began the statement saying she didn't understand why she was urged out months ago.

See the video (below) with previously omitted portion of Clinton listing many years in which the campaigns went all the way into the convention. This would include Ted Kennedy challenging sitting-President Carter at the convention when Kennedy was 750 delegates behind -- but mentioning THAT would have been impolitic for sure.

Here's the video:
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20080523_clintons_rfk_remark_now_in_video/

It’s obvious to me that many people KNEW instantly that she was referring to the “in JUNE” timeline because of the question asked and her voice emphasis for 'June' — and therefore a bleeding-apology was not needed, except by Obama-intensives. RFK,Jr. understood it, saying "I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

Both candidates are under secret-service protection and there is extreme hatred and many death wishes posted against Clinton, which for months people have found quite acceptable.

In fact, it's been said that in April there was added secret service protection added for Clinton - I can imagine so by reading the blog-hate.

When I see videos of either one of them in crowds and see the secret service guys very tense, I worry for both of them.

Furthermore, she does stay in because of the following:

Most do not know that Howard Dean, in a talk with Financial Times on April 25,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cb39916c-1329-11dd-8d91-0000779fd2ac.html
said the following about superdelegate decisions to be made:

=======
"I think the race is going to come down to the perception in *the last six or eight races* of who *the best opponent for McCain* will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote *or anything else*."
=======

The rules have nothing saying that Superdelegates follow the lead of pledged delegates -- for if they did, Superdelegates would not be needed !

Re Electability as focus for SDs:

In virtually every electoral-college poll-match currently, Clinton is easily beating McCain, while Obama is, overall, losing to McCain. And this is before the Republican 527 vetting of Obama.

http://hominidviews.com/?p=1560
Clinton: 100% probability of winning (May 26)

http://hominidviews.com/?p=1561
Obama: 37.3% probability of winning (May 26

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May28.html
Electoral Votes: Clinton 327

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May28.html
Electoral Votes: Obama 266

Dean told one group that the DNC CANNOT nullify a state-certified vote but they can refuse to seat or count a delegation (or portions of it).

Popular vote totals:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Latest polls:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

Sadly, Keith O spends most of his time now making ad hominem attacks in an atrabilious fashion that demonstrates he is almost insane---scratch "almost"---about Bill O'Reilly, who consistently beats him 2 1/2 to one in the ratings, at a minimum. And the more he shrieks, and makes his oh-so "special" comments, which are usually a grab-bag of liberal tropes and attack-ad punch lines, the more he diminishes himself in the eyes of viewers.

Posters like BlueKnight simply are coasting toward another Dem defeat in the POTUS race---HRC will win Ohio, PA, FL & Obama won't, Those three states are the keys to the electoral college. Obama wins in states totally 230. HRC wins in states totalling over 300. HRC may actually win in WV in the general, & Obama will be 30 points behind McCain.

Do ultra-left types like some of the posters here actually have triple digit IQs? Or if they do, do they think like Sharon Stone [IQ:154]? Maybe they're are unconsciously acting out their loo-zer fantasies.

I may not vote for her, but she is better than Obama & his horrendous spouse, who on 60 Minutes last year claimed that "black men get shot going to the gas station, black men get shot all the time" to a startled host. Why doesn't that zany insanity get put into the MSM?

And BlueKnight should know that Rush often gets 30 million listeners a day. Keith is lucky to get a million.

Re Eugene Robinson's articlem he was continuing, after 3 days, to mischaracterize her answer to the specific question why people (like Robinson) would be asking her, even before April, why she was still in the race, and she gave two instances of primaries very active "in JUNE" and said she didn't understand it - the urgency to get her out. She also began the statement saying she didn't understand why she was urged out months ago.

See the video (below) with previously omitted portion of Clinton listing many years in which the campaigns went all the way into the convention. This would include Ted Kennedy challenging sitting-President Carter at the convention when Kennedy was 750 delegates behind -- but mentioning THAT would have been impolitic for sure.

Here's the video:
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20080523_clintons_rfk_remark_now_in_video/

It’s obvious to me that many people KNEW instantly that she was referring to the “in JUNE” timeline because of the question asked and her voice emphasis for 'June' — and therefore a bleeding-apology was not needed, except by Obama-intensives. RFK,Jr. understood it, saying "I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

Both candidates are under secret-service protection and there is extreme hatred and many death wishes posted against Clinton, which for months people have found quite acceptable.

In fact, it's been said that in April there was added secret service protection added for Clinton - I can imagine so by reading the blog-hate.

When I see videos of either one of them in crowds and see the secret service guys very tense, I worry for both of them.

Furthermore, she does stay in because of the following:

Most do not know that Howard Dean, in a talk with Financial Times on April 25,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cb39916c-1329-11dd-8d91-0000779fd2ac.html
said the following about superdelegate decisions to be made:

=======
"I think the race is going to come down to the perception in *the last six or eight races* of who *the best opponent for McCain* will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote *or anything else*."
=======

The rules have nothing saying that Superdelegates follow the lead of pledged delegates -- for if they did, Superdelegates would not be needed !

Re Electability as focus for SDs:

In virtually every electoral-college poll-match currently, Clinton is easily beating McCain, while Obama is, overall, losing to McCain. And this is before the Republican 527 vetting of Obama.

http://hominidviews.com/?p=1560
Clinton: 100% probability of winning (May 26)

http://hominidviews.com/?p=1561
Obama: 37.3% probability of winning (May 26

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May28.html
Electoral Votes: Clinton 327

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May28.html
Electoral Votes: Obama 266

Dean told one group that the DNC CANNOT nullify a state-certified vote but they can refuse to seat or count a delegation (or portions of it).

Popular vote totals:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Latest polls:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

Apologies - my Comcast connection was lost and I was posting elsewhere on TIME and wound up on this page again without knowing it and re-posted a similar note.

It was already long, so a big apology for letting that happen.

I have been a big fan of Keith Olberman's and have watched his show for two years or more. But I truly feel that his taking Hillary to the woodshed over her comments about the Democratic race going into June were way over the top!! She emphasized the word JUNE in her original comment and she was trying to recall races that still were in place in June of previous years. Her reference to the asassination of Robert Kennedy was inappropriate and very unfortunate. But to believe that she (Hillary) is in any way waiting out there in case of some unforeseen horrific thing happening to Senator Obama is to discredit everything that she has stood for all her life. Keith, you are beginning to sound a bit like the guy on FOX that you mock all the time, your buddy Billo!

I am a big fan of Keith. He says it like it is. Hillary Clinton can really dish it out herself and should know better than to include a great man and tragic event in our history in her plea to stay in the race. Hillary should be ashamed of herself. We all know what she meant when she made these comments....get out of the race before you make any more verbal assaults on great people.

A newer videoclip of the June remarks includes the previously omitted portion listing various years in which the campaigns went all the way into the convention

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20080523_clintons_rfk_remark_now_in_video/

Ted Kennedy did challenge sitting-President Carter into the convention while Kennedy was 750 delegates behind Carter. I imagine people were not trying to push him out of the race while ascribing all kinds of nasty interpretations of his need to keep running.

I think it actually IS a matter of it being more acceptable for men to be aggressive in pursuing the presidency despite being behind.

With Clinton, you get all the jokes about first wives at divorce hearings and her apparently 'insane' need to stay in a race -- in which she will probably have the higher number of total votes cast, not to mention her currently beating McCain in electoral-college poll matchups whereas Obama loses to him.

The SDs will decide based on everything, whichever way it goes, and there never was a need for the ugliness we've seen with this rage over a lost penny.

TV pundits seem to have no idea of what the superdelegate rules are (the rules don't mention SDs going with pledged-delegate lead when the goal hasn't been reached). But the tv experts can only repeat like robots, "It's the math," all the while keeping from viewers the fact that that the superdelegates are asked to look instead to electability along with total votes cast as well, if wanting to win in November.

Furthermore, if strange continual errors by Obama keep showing up (uncle, and grand-uncle, liberating Auschwitz; 57 states in the union; arabic-speaking Afghanistanis; "fallen heroes" in the crowd at his speech to graduates the other day -- superdelegates can change their minds every which way until they actually vote at the Convention in August.

The main-stream media has not reported his gaffe the day before the Auschwitz one, noted at
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/019733.php
but he suddenly inserted a clause into his prepared speech, and that insertion was stranger than Clinton's gaffe:

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."

Obama's website has the transcript without the odd parenthetical addition while the video at the website does include his strangeness.

Can you imagine the media reaction if Clinton had said that at a graduation ceremony?

They'd be all over it. Guffaw time. Maybe even a Special Comment about inappropriate Memorial Day utterances.

Obama needs to stay with the prepared speech.

In North Carolina, at his victory speech, he said "the flags draped over ..." and looked up at one of the two teleprompters, hesitated and then said, "my father's coffin" but the script said "my grandfather's coffin" and it was right and was something he should have remembered.

Maybe it's just that he wasn't that close to his grandparents who took care of him, as he writes in his book that he chose to live with them because they left him pretty much alone. But a personal detail like this is not one you'd normally need a teleprompter for nor one you'd be confused over.

I am a Obama supporter so i naturally like Keith. However, even being a huge obama supporter his Anti-Clinton rants are a little too much. He is quickly becoming the left's version of Billo in that he actively seeks things out to overreact to.
His one saving grace is that i do not believe anything is wrong with him being bias. I think people are starting to forget that Olbermann,Matthews and all of the other talking heads are not suppose to give you the news. They are paid to give their opinion. If you want news you should read the newspaper or watch the evening news. No one on this board can honestly say they watch Hardball for news. They talk about 3-4 things the entire day. Each show simply offers opinions on the topics they decide are important. Its simply entertainment for those of us crazy about Politics. So instead of comparing Keith to the world news look at him as a Political junkies version of Sportscenter (with more opinion pieces). They have no need to be balanced, they just simply report on the stuff they think appeals to their viewers.This is why sportscenter never talks about anything but the yanks and red soxs.

James Poniewozik is 100% WRONG and he can't shine Keith's shoes. Keith's Special Comment on Hillary was brilliant and a perfect bullseye. Hillary is a repulsive, guttersniping thug who ran a venomous, dishonest campaign based on race-baiting and fear-mongering. It's about time somebody called Hillary out. Thank you Keith!!!

I am in absolute agreement with Keith Olberman and I don't for one minute think he blew any gasket, etc. As far as I am concerned he is the only one who had the guts to call it what it was. The moment I heard that comment I was simply appalled that she could have said that. Tell me how you can misconstrue the meaning of Hillary referencing a past assassination as a reason to remain in the race. What else does it mean other than she is hoping that he will get assassinated so is staying in the race just in case. WAKE UP PEOPLE!

There are any number of past facts and races that she could have mentioned. Who goes back 40 years when there are so many more recent political races she could have mentioned. I am sorry but I and a great many people are completely disgusted with Hillary Clinton and her win-at-all-cost tactics. It is unacceptable and unforgivable of her to wish this on another human being. Under no circumstance should that have even entered her mind and everybody needs to say that. I guarantee you that if Barack Obama had said that he would be out of the race and the media and the public would never have let it go. So tell me why is everybody being so easy on her? We should all be disgusted and appalled and nobody should give her a free ride on this. There has to be some limits to how far she is willing to go. Thank you Keith Olberman, you have my gratitude and that of the rest of America who finds this as egregious as it really was. Thank you for telling the truth and for being willing to call Hillary on this. It was also sad that at a time when the Kennedy family and all of the country is reeling from Senator Kennedy's diagnosis of cancer that she would be so crass as to bring up such a devastating reminder for the family. She is pathetic and desperate.

By hoping for balance between the anti-Clinton and anti-Obama rhetoric, aren't you also hoping on the false objectivity that so-called balanced media reportage provides? By giving equal treatment to opposing sides, regardless of their merits or demerits, one isn't necessarily being objective but slanting coverage towards a possibly unworthy or untruthful side of the debate.

In this case, Clinton's standing in this race warrants less attention than Obama and her insistence that it does can bring derision. Sure, Olbermann went way too far here and has been doing so in the past, but isn't this the cost of staying in a race in which one has 0-5% chance of winning while continuing to make desperate claims and statements to gain ground? Short story long, Clinton probably doesn't deserve this level of vitriol, but by staying in in the manner that she is, she's certainly inviting it.

A timely entry just behind Dylcia. She is correct. Olbermann is reacting to what is by turns the cowardice, incompetence or just plain laziness of what passes for journalism in this country, in tandem with a supine Congress that hasn't had the spine to use inherent rather than criminal content to enforce its feeble efforts to hold the Bush administration accountable. Olbermann's show is not a strict newscast, it is a current events magazine show and freely mixes opinion with news. Keith is not an antidote for the pablum of network news, our deteriorating newspapers or the Rush limbaugh's and Michael Savages. He is a distinct voice that vents what people to the left of the likes of the Democratic Leadership Council who have been sacrificed to corporatists and expediency have felt for years. He is a voice for the Phil Donahues and Ashleigh Burkes of the news world who were sacrificed on the steps of the White House for daring to speak truth to power. He is in reality an antidote for simpering nonentities like David Broder, Richard Cohen, David Brookes and the "bitter" and nearly unreadable Maureen Dowd. You have your knickers in a twist because he has the courage you lack.

I am an older "Broadcast Journalist" with four decades experience who watches the broadcast community with a more critical eye & ear than most.

Mr. Olbermann can indeed 'startle' people with the depth and emotive feeling that he conveys with his commentaries and indeed he is loud and vexatious to the weary at certain times. That being said I will say in his defence that he picks the subjects/topics to comment upon with far greater aplomb and astuteness than almost anyone currently on public airwaves.

His discourse is more attuned to serving those who desire some ‘Intellectual Honesty’ in what they hear and he readily displays that sterling attribute with a greater capacity for that hallmark of occupational qualification than 90% of those who try to feign that they too are professional broadcast journalists.

He did not win an Edward R. Murrow award for nothing Mr. Poniewozik and I and others of a like mind appreciate his exercising the skills he has crafted into a superior ‘Press’ persona of some credible repute.
.

This is my own Special Comment:

I read the entire column by James Poniewozik – including his update in which he revealed that he had voted for Obama. I will also reveal my California primary vote James: I voted for Hillary.

Thanks to the never-ending primary season, we have both had time to reconsider and were I to vote today – I would vote for Obama. I have continued to listen to Hillary and have been increasingly disappointed. She seems to be afflicted with situational ethics. On the other hand, the more I hear from Barach – the more I like him. Early on, someone likened him to Lincoln – and I thought, no way. But now, I’m beginning to see what they see – a resolute person, a thinker, a man of high character – and, one to whom “Hail to the Chief” might easily refer. He’s not perfect of course, but I believe he’s one who will never stray far from the high road.

The point is that I believe Keith Olbermann and I are at a similar stage. As I viewed the video for a second time and listened again to his words, I too felt his keen disappointment with Hillary. I second all he had to say. His point was not only the Kennedy comment and the non-apology. He was sadly summarizing a series of disappointments leading to her diminution – In his opinion as well as mine. Hillary fights hard, she tries everything in the book. Unfortunately, some of the things she tries appear tawdry and over the line.

I believe Olbermann has high standards. I am a regular viewer and, though he too is not perfect, he does bring the passion. If you think that he’s not calm enough, then you might ask yourself where the “polite” journalism of the Bush years has gotten us. The hack journalists are those who are so jaded, paid off, or muzzled, that they can never feel hot under the collar – never go bloodhound. Truth is the standard to which I expect Keith to hew. We may lie when we tell our preacher that his sermon was wonderful but we dare not lie about the Constitution and the history of our nation and the larger world. We may not lie about the ugly facts of the eight-year trainwreck which we as a nation must now repair. Keith has not disappointed me. I’m older than Keith and we all mellow a bit as we age. It’s way too soon for Keith to mellow and the world of journalism needs an un-mellow Keith Olbermann.

Mr. Poniewozik describes Keith as “someone you used to cheer automatically.” If that was Mr. P’s habit he needs to break it. We all have to guard our reputation and build cred over time.” Mr. P also penned his “only wish”: “...(that) there were more anti-Obama outlets to balance the anti-Clinton ones. More than a wish, that’s a dream world where everyone is equally corrupt - or equally honest. In the real world presidential contest we must keep score and finally make our choice. Keith’s prime duty is to keep us informed. And when he goes off on a “rant,” the warning label is plain – it’s a Special Comment.

Tonight, I watched Keith’s interview with Scott McClellan. Could anyone else have done it better?

Clinton has a lifetime of experience carefully weaving a message between her words. Such is the life of a professional persuader. She leveraged that experience to the hilt.

The reference was vague enough to give her plausible deniability, but clear enough to open the door for others to talk about it. Net effect -- the topic of Obama being assasinated surfaces when she most needs this exact type of negativity.

Olbermann's premise that the "A" word is off limits is significant and telling. Someone has to play the zealot and make the statements that he did. I felt pretty much the same way as Keith did, but just didn't know how to express my outrage.

You wrote: "I only wish there were more anti-Obama outlets to balance the anti-Clinton ones"

I promise you, there would be more of them if Obama were as tragically flawed a candidate as Clinton is.

The Obama gaffes, flaps, scandals, whatever,... you can still count on one hand! (Geez, he got wrong "which" concentration camp his uncle helped liberate.)

It seems all Hillary, Bill or their surrogates have to do is open their mouths, and we all have to, duck and cringe©, from the detritus spewing forth.

Olbermann, who I love, IS a left wing version of Bill O'Reilly. That is precisely why we love him. And, Clinton should be walking around at this point with at least two a-holes, if not more, and it was appropriate for him to tear her a brand new one, over the stupidity of her repeating her previously spoken comments regarding RFK, AND because of her truly tragic inability to be accountable for anything she says or has done. Clinton, her surrogates, and her supporters, are in Bizarro World, the ideological twin opposites to the Bushies.

Like John Stewart, and Colbert, Olbermann provides a "treatment" for liberals, (who haven't drunk the Clinton Kool-