Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Wrath of Olbermann

For much of the 1990s, Republicans used talk radio -- and its crown prince, Rush Limbaugh -- as both a motivational and organizational tool for the party base. Millions of people tuned in and turned on -- to politics that is.

Liberals had no such organizing vehicle. Talk radio on the left was close to nonexistent, and there was no other common space for progressives to talk, argue, compare notes and strategize.

The rise of the "netroots"over the past five years or so has changed all that. So, too, has the growth of progressive talk radio -- championed by the likes of Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller.

But perhaps the most important -- and far-reaching -- development on the left in recent memory is the emergence of Keith Olbermann and his "Countdown" program on MSNBC as a rallying point for liberals nationwide. (An important note: The Fix is a semi-regular guest on Olbermann's show.)

"Countdown" has become one on the most-watched programs on cable television -- thanks, at least in part, to his willingness to call out the Bush administration on everything from the war in Iraq to Scooter Libby. When Olbermann talks, progressives listen.

Given his iconic status on the left, we were particularly struck by a "special comment" offered by Olbermann earlier this week on Geraldine Ferraro and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (N.Y.) presidential campaign.

Here's the full "Special Comment":

Olbermann called the response to the Ferraro controversy "arrogant" and "tone deaf," adding: "You are now campaigning as if Barack Obama were the Democrat and you were the Republican."

There was more -- far more. "You have missed a critical opportunity to do what is right," Olbermann scolded Clinton; he said a "cheap ignorant vile racism" lurked just below the surface of Ferraro's comments. "This is not a campaign strategy, this is a suicide pact," Olbermann continued.

Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson did his best to put lipstick on the pig following the comments by Olbermann. "We, obviously, vigorously disagree with that characterization, although many of us remain fans of Keith and enjoy watching the show on nights other than last night," Wolfson told Politico's Ben Smith.

Olbermann was careful to point out at the start of the nearly ten-minute "special comment" that it in no way should his remarks be construed as an endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). But the tenor of his comments, coupled with the influence he wields among progressive activists, could well hurt Clinton's cammpaign as she seeks to make the case to the remaining states why she should be the nominee.

As Democrats learned in the 1990s, underestimate the power of Limbaugh at your own peril. Clinton's campaign would be wise to heed that lesson when it comes to Olbermann.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 15, 2008; 1:50 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FixCam: Choose Your Own (North Carolina) Adventure
Next: The Fix Breaks

Comments

mbnv hxbi qgzfh svhpexf mxwn orwahukb hxgay

Posted by: irfzmhvlp ejmlspa | April 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

mbnv hxbi qgzfh svhpexf mxwn orwahukb hxgay

Posted by: irfzmhvlp ejmlspa | April 16, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

I WAS one of KO's biggest fans. That is, until he jumped the shark over his love affair with Obama. I was channel surfing last Friday night, so I caught several Obama interviews. As I wrote to Keith, he went all "Campbell Brown" when Obama appeared. BO was pressed to answer truthfully by Major Garrett, but Keith let him off with the party line that he never hear this stuff. He lied to Keith, which became clear after his speech. Yet instead of calling him on it, Keith continued the love fest. It is sickening.

Then he went on last night for two hours about the Obama passport breach, even going so far---with pimpin' David Shuster's help---to draw a "tenuous" (by his own admission) line to the Clintons in his breathless effort to gin up the story.
The anti-Clinton bias is unbelievable. I guess women are dirt, since Geraldine Ferraro, Hillary and even Barack's grandma are just punchlines in the MSNBC world.

Olbermann's considerable gifts and his ability to cut through the rhetoric and spin seem to be fading. Perhaps he should apply for Obama's PR flack position. He's getting to be as about as trustworthy as Ari Fleischer was.

Posted by: JHRRNMS | March 21, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

I've been watching KO for a couple of years now. Although MSNBC has had a pro-Obama tilt, KO has on his show called out a couple of his colleagues on remarks they have made. If he thinks you're wrong, he's gonna tell ya.

For me I think his special commentary put together all of my issues with The Clintons and race.(Full Disclosure: I am an african am woman who was so excited at the beginning of the campaign. Who had her dream ticket of Clinton-Obama ready to punch in her head! Oh and had a huge crush on Bill...seriously!)

But looking back I remember reading an article ( if someone can remember who the b lack chairperson was for S. Carolina was that would be helpful) This person stated the the Democrats would suffer downticket if Obama was the Dem. nominee because: whites weren't ready to vote a black as pres. Hilary didn't really respond when asked about the remarks. (of course at this point she was up double digits on Obama so no concerns right?)
But it was kinda borderline for me.But she was given the benefit of the doubt by me and my hubby (full disclosure again: he's white) because it was just one time right?

But time and time again, the borderline thing has popped up. The tipping point for Af-Am...and others was Bill when he was leaving South Carolina. (and for him to say the media made the controversy up is just pouring salt on the wound) My jaw literally hit the floor when I saw the footage. (Because the media did take the "fairy tale " remark a bit out of context to me.)
There was a backlash and the retreated from those statements but then came Ohio and Texas. And the kitchen sink along with the negative campaigning. But the most damning moment for me wasn't race: It was when she basically said McCain was more qualified to deal with Iraq because he was in the Senate while Obama "he gave a speech". Absolutely true...but how do you elevate the other party's guy against your own primary opponent? Please explain that one again...along with the Hilary at the top of the ticket despite being behind and Obama being unqualified to be CIC. I didn't know the RNC had hired her as a one-woman 527.

Is Obama perfect?....nope, he should have dealt with the Pastor thing like a year ago and preempted this brouhaha. Edwards with his 400 haircuts...no. But when you have a sibling fight (which is this primary is increasing looking like) you don't snitch each other out to the other siblings or mom and Dad..why?....cause everyone loses that way. Right now, no matter who wins the sibling fight the party loses. And I don't know if the Democrats can still win in the December. So Keith's view for me (and hubby
) was validating what we and most of our friends and family have been saying since South Carolina. That race and gender shouldn't be the issue and once they become the issue it's gonna be hard to fix. Obama's speech may have helped but if the primary continues past June and into the convention.....too scary to contemplate!

Posted by: radcaligirl | March 19, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

I, too, used to watch Mr. Olbermann until he exposed his lack of journalistic integrity with commentary that, to paraphrase him, arose out his anger at things said or done by others.

I agree with those who point out tha Sen. Obama will not disown Rev. Wright as he wouldn't any other member of his family--one might remember that he, of course, did not disown his wife for her lifelong lack of pride in the United States and its government.

I was struck by his proclamation of the slave and slave owner DNA of his wife that "they passed on to his two precious daughters." He did not life in the South of the 1940's, '50's, '60's or '70's and in my view is so far removed from understanding the historic plight of African-Americans that his attempts to "bridge the racial gap in this country" only pretends to relive what Americans have worked, and continue to work, to overcome.

He is cynical, arrogan, and without the sincere compassion required of the John Lewises, Andrew Youngs, or Martin Luther Kings who began and continue to lead the struggle.

Why the citizens of this country cannot see someone using the issue as a wedge more effectively than Republicans is beyond me. He is "George Bush warmed over" and will, if he continues on his current course, set race relations back 20 years.

Messers. Olbermann and Matthews should take at look at their coverage and commentary. They pretend revolutionary outrage and democratic wisdom without either. That's why I am now reduced to occasionally watching CNN where they simply spend most of their time selling CNN.

Posted by: HRXchange | March 19, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

He says his words are not meant to be an "endorsement of obama"....IS HE KIDDING?? Does he honestly think he comes across as objective and free of bias?? What joke! Of course he and the most of MSNBC are in the "tank for obama"!!! That includes his guests like howard fineman. why does he think SNL came up with that skit? To use incredulous language like you do, keith....BECAUSE YOU'RE BIASED TOWARDS OBAMA AND CANNOT HIDE YOUR DISDAIN FOR HILLARY!! YOU MORON! I no longer watch keith or chris matthews and have instead watch fox so I can get a more rational analysis of both hillary and obama. I never thought I would do that! At least now we have david gregory, even though he has air america obama fawners, also...at least he does include some guests that can talk about hillary without mostly negative commentary. I'm not surprised either by the soft balls he threw at obama with NONE of the outrage he reserves for hillary (and of course, bush).

Posted by: ogdeeds | March 19, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Kieth O. , Well what do you have to say about Obama's justification of Rev. Wright's anti-American and Anti-Semitic remarks. He lies to the American people , he has heard such hateful rhetoric for the pulpit and did nothing about it. Talked down about his white grandmother, but praised and excuse Rev. Wright. They say , one is judge by the company one keeps, could be true on this occasion. Between his friendship with Rezko and Rev. Wright, Obama's hasn't made good choices.

Posted by: jpannebecker | March 19, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

i wonder how many of the very similiar and repetitive, "i used to watch KO, but i don't now" cause he dissed Hillary, posts were actually written by Hillary staffers? one can always tell when her campaign has decided on a 'theme' or specific spin.

one can identify it easily, cause they spout those same couple lines verbatim over and over. guess they nicked that tactic from the bushies.

barack may talk about change...but as a way to convey the way he wants to address the issues.

the clinton campaign just sputters "rezko!"... "rev. wright!".... "michigan and florida!" ad infinitum.

Posted by: harry.fuchs | March 19, 2008 7:15 AM | Report abuse

Hopefully KO will condemn this guy who also agreed with Ferraro:

If he were white ... he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?

Senator Barrack Obama June 26, 2005
http://obama.senate.gov/news/050626-when_it_comes_to_race_obama_ma/

Is the media calling to call out Obama for his fake outrage over Ferraro when he basically said the same thing about himself? Somehow I doubt we will see a KO special comment on this.

Posted by: labrat94720 | March 19, 2008 4:23 AM | Report abuse

Olbermann is a bag of hot air...the most over rated of the "kids in the back seat." The pro Obama bias is so obvious with Olbermann and Chris Mathews. Discouraging. When I'm looking for fair political analysis, I'm not looking to see who can pander the most. The worst thing NBC ever did was to pair them for election coverage. I know which network I WON'T be watching for convention coverage.

Posted by: billinps | March 19, 2008 3:33 AM | Report abuse

Olbermann is a bag of hot air...the most over rated of the "kids in the back seat." The pro Obama bias is so obvious with Olbermann and Chris Mathews. Discouraging. When I'm looking for fair political analysis, I'm not looking to see who can pander the most. The worst thing NBC ever did was to pair them for election coverage. I know which network I WON'T be watching for convention coverage.

Posted by: billinps | March 19, 2008 3:33 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama is a liar

To all
Obama speech ,,,, Not sure if you caught Not only did Obama,,, Refuses to denounce him,, but even More,, He say in his own words,,,
Barack Obama was in church when Jeremiah Wright,, was spewing Anti-American, Racist ism ,,,, Those were his own words,,, barack was there
After going on keith Oberman ,Show obama said he would denounce that if he heard that language he would leave and not tolerate it , and denounce it
After he went on MSNBC,, he went on FOX CNN ABC< all the news station saying he was never there,,, in his church when he said these things,,
But Now today during his speech,,He states flat out Say's HE was there,,, Last week Barack Obama Lied,, went on all the news stations, and Lied,,
But your not reporting that,,,, You can rest assure,,, cnn ,,, Fox , ABC,,, Msnbc,, are getting more on this ,,, they will be reporting on this, and we will see
If you chose to report, Obama Lying on tv,,, If this was Hilary clinton lying and caught lying on all the new station,,, you can be sure,, you would talk about it every hour
people will be on your station debating this,,,, people analysing , if it is hilary clinton but it was not her it was Barack Obama, ,, it bad enought He lied, about being in church
With Jeremiah Write, when he said these anti american ,,,,,and still refuse to denounce him...all the news agency want to do is speak on how good his speech was,
Not that he lied,,, Last week on all the news agency ,, He was never there today in how own speech He say I was there,,,,should play all Obama videos from last week
stating he was not there,,, or heard any of the anti-american Jeremiah Write, said in his church then play his speech today saying he was there and he did hear him in church and refuse to denounce Jeremiah Wright,,,

Posted by: Paulanthony60 | March 19, 2008 3:00 AM | Report abuse

For the first time since I've tuned in, KO delivered a fair and balanced assessment of how the Pastor Wright situation has damaging potential for Obama. I was impressed.

I was more impressed by Bill Clinton's interview with Greta Van S. which featured the current work underway in New Orleans and other Global Initiative work, gathering ideas from young techies and applying them to help green up America and provide efficient housing, energy and University experience for our youth. It's awesome seeing Bill's creative economics at work again and in action, demonstrating they really are all about solutions. He talked about English Billionaire
what's-his-name?, Virgin Air?, who has donated and made a commitment to develop alternative fuel for jets for which none has yet been found.

Posted by: thinktank | March 19, 2008 2:47 AM | Report abuse

So glad to hear that so many other people have stopped watching KO.

Chris, you should jump off that burning ship before it sinks.

The guy along with the rest of MSNBC have completely blown it. I don't think it matters whether Senator Obama is nominated or elected, there is no way I ever go back to watching these guys again.

Posted by: pkilgallon | March 18, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Religion and Politics should NEVER mix. That was true with hate talk from Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, and Wright, etc. They should stay in their pulpits, and shut up about important political issues. Or, all preachers/ministers and their churches, should have their tax exempt status taken away, so the American tax payer can stop subsidizing them.

Posted by: Leathnm | March 18, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Olbermann is a hack. Anyone who puts any stock in what he has to say is just as mindless as the legions of O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Hannity fans.

Olbermann and the right winger talkers represent much of what is wrong with the American news media of today. Instead of examining facts and issues in an in-depth and unbiased way, that spout polemic rhetoric that divides our country and distracts their followers from the real problems and the important issues.

Do yourselves a favor, save the money that is wasted on cable television and watch some real news for free on PBS,(The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, anyone?)

P.S. Olbermann also annoys the piss out of me on Football Night in America...

Posted by: bigred1120 | March 18, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

For the posters here who reference the comments of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who said that 9/11 happened to America because we have become the new Soddom and Ghamorrah, that is, we brought 9/11 down on ourselves, what happened to them?

They were ridiculed, they lost their credibility to speak to national issues, as once they did because of their ridiculous statements coming from the Right. They in effect said, that because American has embraced Left wing ideology, God sent his punishment on 9/11.

What did Wright say: Because America has espoused Right wing ideology, God sent his punishment on 9/11.

One version is as ignorant as the other and both sets of preachers, the ones on the Right and on the Left ought to be sent to the Exits for spewing such poison.

If a Presidential candidate signed on to the Pat Robertson version of God's wrath, what chance would he have to win national office? Not much I'd say.

We need to get all of these preachers out of the politic business. Its bad for politics and worse for religion. Its why the wise founders put into the First Amendment that the state should not support any religion, a separation.

If you want to comingle church and state, go to Iran. That is the perfect example of what government looks like when the Supreme Leader is the one who claims to talk to God on a regular basis.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 18, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Well I watched Olbermann last night just to see if any of this has sunk in yet. He had his usual segment called 'Worst Person of the Day' and went over some poor schmuk.

Did he ever put Rev. Jeremiah Wright into his "Worst Person" catagory??

The MSNBC boys all seem hunkered down, hoping upon hope that Obama can pull their chestnuts out of the fire today in Philadephia.

Afterall, they have all jumped on this guy's bandwagon placing their credibility into the hands of a political candidate whom they all hardly knew.

It is the first rule of journalism -- to maintain one's objectivity. They all lost it and in losing it, they all now have to find some way to come crawling back in off of that limb to which they have all gotten off on.

What can Obama say today -- Condemn the message but not the messenger. Try to explain that this is what America looks like to Black folks in the Black experience.

How would Obama know. He was born in Hawaii, raised in Kenya and Indonesia, brought back to Hawaii and then found himself in Chicago somehow, the record is not clear and at 27 years of age did not have any sort of idea about religion until he met up with Jeremiah Wright and started to buy into Wright's ideas about Christianity.

Having attended Black church services many times in the south, not in Chicago, I can tell you that there is no such thing as any sort of hatred toward anyone that comes from the Black pulpits. The African Americans are the most religious people that one encounters in the South, it is the source of much of their ideals of social justice and the heart of the progressive movement in the South. They hate no one, they are trying mightily to build each other up, but would never do so by tearing anyone else down.

If Obama had been a part of the Black experience in the United States during his formative years, he would not have this skewed idea that all of Black America is as angry and put out as his Chicago congregation.

As has been said, Rev. Wright has every right to preach the Gospel as he sees fit and the good people of that church have every right to attend and believe as they see fit, this is America and America is big enough to include and embrace all people, even those who hate her.

But we are not talking here about the freedom to worship or freedom of speech. That is not the issue. The issue is whether someone from that world view and perspective can or should become elected President of the United States.

His platform has been that he bears the unique ability to bridge gaps to bring different people together and to end divisions in the country. His membership in this church has certainly exposed him and educated him to people with a world view that white people are oppressors and are evil and in the business of keeping other racial groups repressed.

But the question is, what has Obama done in that church community to reconcile it to the larger White and Black communities that do not hold that world view or perspective. Obama has had 20 years to have some sort of positive unifying impact on his church community.

What has he done other than attend the church and give it money and remain, as far as we know, uncritical of Rev. Wright and his version of the Gospel?

If the point of view expressed by Wright is a legitimate statement of the Black experience, why should Obama distance himself from it? Is Obama not a product of the Black experience in America? What does that say about Obama that he would turn his back on his fellow parishioners for the past 20 years for the sake of feeding his ambition to become President of the United States? That he would castigate their preacher in the same tones as Rush Limbaugh does?

Obama is in an impossible spot. If he condemns the preacher, then Obama turns his back on who he is. If Obama justifies his preacher, then he stands against the vast majority of Americans Black and White and how can he do so and win election to the Presidency.

I don't think there is enough snake oil that you can put even on his silver tongue to get him out of this spot.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 18, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

There are too many editorialists and too few reporters in the media. The truth is, the whole issue of racism is exacerbated by the candidates themselves, their parties, and the media who scrutinize race, religion, gender and ethnicity constantly in polling that divides the electorate along these lines and indeed does. Why is it racist if someone says it but not racist when pollsters ask it?
The statements Geraldine Ferraro made were no more racist than the "demographics" referred to in practically every campaign analysis. She was just too blunt. But blunt beats what that pastor Wright was spewing any day. And so I am tired of everyone yelling race and racist. The pollsters should stop pidgeonholing the voters. Obama should stop pretending his race has nothing to do with his present position and that he's not using it as a cudgel. And the people should look at the merits of the candidates, not their color, not their spouses, not their gender. The only legitimate "category" that one could use in choosing the President is religion -and that because his or her beliefs can fairly be expected to influence how the person thinks and reacts.

Posted by: lhen1 | March 18, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

If any one word can describe Keith Olberman, it is "disingenuous." The man seems constitutionally incapable of a sound argument. In view of the pulpit he has been given, one can only believe that his arguments, veritable showcases of every species of logical fallacy known to man, are deliberately crafted to mislead and misguide. Of course, the necessary want of discretion that alone allows progressive thought to persist explains why Mr. Olberman's audience hasn't noticed yet that the man has no clothes.

Rank stupidity is the first predicate of the socialist progressive. Mr. Olberman is the very genius of the type.

Posted by: dryrunfarm | March 18, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

KO IS a fanatic! and he's been apologizing for Barack since day one.
Sorry, but Ferraro's comment was true - Olbermann should move beyond his white guilt and educate himself - read Shelby Steele's book on Obama - the 'bargainer'. I no longer watch KO and have given his book to Good Will. His zeal only comes from a poisonous white guilt and the rage fueled by that defensiveness drips from each melodramatic phrase.
Rather than a rational spokesman, he has become O'Reilly or Limbaugh - Soap box standing and irrational - he's over for me and many.

Posted by: swmayhew | March 18, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Like so many who have commented, I used to watch Keith Olbermann all the time. His coverage of the Bush administration and all related issues was excellent and he had interesting guests like John Dean among others. It was one of my favorite shows.

Since KO turned into a spokesman for Obama in the last few months, I and many have tuned out. I don't watch KO any more and agree that MSNBC in general has a real issue with fairness and balance when it comes to the democratic candidates. The MSNBC team for the most part are a bunch of loud mouth fraternity boys. One the other hand, where's the scrutiny of John McCain. Oh, he's one of the boys so he too gets special handling.

Posted by: russell2 | March 18, 2008 2:17 AM | Report abuse

Why is it ok for Barak to question Hillary's "judgement" and equate it to McCain and Bush- for the last year and 3 months, but when she says that 2 of the candidates are experienced- everyone jumps on her and says she is endorsing a republican. Isn't this a similar attack?

Why is it that when Ferraro points out that she (as the first woman but a candidate with little experience) was destroyed by the media, while he (as the first AA candidate with a chance) has gotten a pass on similar experience, credentials and scandals- it is called racist on behalf of the Clintons (and she is only an associate of theirs)- While it is OK for Rev. Wright to say directly racially charged things (AIDS/Crack invented by US govt., Clintons racist, etc.)when in his autobiography Obama calls reverand Wright inspirational and says that he helped him find his direction, when he has had an 18 year relationship with the guy, when he has donated over 10000 to the organization and when he is involved in every aspect of Obama's family life- clearly Barak knew the things Wright had said- he said them many times over a course of years, it's not like they were in some California based newspaper interview...

Why is it that there are constant attacks on her for being so ambitious and political when he is so much more ambitious and political? Is it just the rhetoric?

I am a lifelong leftist and I am disappointed in liberals for backing a guy whose policies are actually to the right of hers. Why weren't the liberals behind Edwards whose policies matched liberal ideology the best? Currently I am disgusted with the party- whomever is the candidate has my vote and efforts this time but I am done with the Dems.
Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | March 18, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

I think the major problem with Hillary's campaign is this: we all know her so-called "experience" is bull. She's been an elected legislator for a shorter a period of time than Obama. She's basically running on her husband's name.

Okay, fine. The thing is, since she's a former first lady, she has to prove doubly that she's up for the job. That means distancing herself from Bill and proving she can win the election without him stumping for her.

There was a similar problem with Mitt Romney. Mitt's rich. If he really wanted to prove he had what it takes to be president, he would have capped his spending to at least match the next highest spender in the GOP. Instead he spent crazily and still lost to John McCain. His "economic expertise" he pushed got discredited; he was shown to have made a bad investment in Iowa, losing to Mike Huckabee. As Obama said, he didn't get much on his return.

Hillary has to prove she's not just the former first lady, that she's not running on her husband's name. To do this, she has to keep Bill away from the press. Otherwise, she's just a fake feminist, preaching empowerment but acting on dependency. She needs to show real independence and make us believe she would have been in the running even without her husband's success to back her. So far, she hasn't done this. That's a problem.

Posted by: mahmud010 | March 17, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

I would prefer that Keith would not rant in a manner that should be reserved for Fox. However, it may have been the only way to get the attention of the Clinton campaign, which seems to have decided that nothing is out of bounds in the campaign.

Remember when a renown professor apologized for calling Hillary a 'monster'. But that wasn't good enough for Hillary. Sadly, Hillary has become a monster in her willingness to do anything to win a primary campaign that she has already lost.

Remember when the press repeatedly told us that Democrats where happy with their list of candidates and would willingly support any of them in the general election. It was the Republicans that did not like any of their choices.

IMHO Keith's anger at the Clinton campaign was because he thought her willingness to do anything to win the nomination would result in too many Democrats not enthusiastically supporting the Democratic candidate in the general election.

After the last few weeks, I can only wonder which president she is married to.

Posted by: MackAA | March 17, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

Results Now Posted Instantly!

Check Back Weekly For New Polls!

Posted by: votenic | March 17, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

I have been listening to all the networks and reading all the comments by the reporters and the various blogs just to see if finally they would be fair and balanced as they claim to be, I find that the Washington Post is the most fair of all if you can do a pole, I want the bloggers to again I say read and learn, this is a transcript of a comment made was after 9/11 by Rev. Jerry Faldwell and Pat Robertson, and as I am not condoning any of it, you have not heard any comments on this, why? because they are from the moral majority of the Republicans, was it okay for Trent Lott to state that the United States would have been better off if then-segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond had won the presidency, is anyone questioning McCain, or qestioning Bill Clinton's mentor J. William Fulbright of 30 yrs who was a segregationist and voted against the civil rights act.

Now is this fair and balanced, Barak Obama is one of the best candidates and person that I have seen in my lifetime, has denounced many times what his pastor stated, and as he has stated judge him on his own merits, is it that the Republicans and the Billary team feel so threatened that he will win and they have searched and searched and not want to do a character assassination of Barak Obama, the politics of the Old and not the new, I still believe that most in this country are not so narrow minded.

Here is the transcript:

These words were spoken by Jerry Falwell on September 13, 2001, as a guest on Pat Robertson's The 700 Club. The transcript:

JERRY FALWELL: And I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected
us so wonderfully these 225 years.

And since 1812, this is the first
time that we've been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results.
And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld,
the Secretary of Defense, said
yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare
available to these monsters -- the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats
-- what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if,
in fact -- if, in fact -- God continues to lift the curtain and allow
the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the
antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to
the major population.

JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.

PAT ROBERTSON: Well yes.

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But,
throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system,
throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked.

And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the
finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.

JERRY FALWELL: Pat, did you notice yesterday the ACLU and all the
Christ-haters, People For the American Way, NOW, etc. were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress as they went out on the steps and called out on to God in
prayer and sang "God Bless America" and said "let the ACLU be hanged".

In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time - calling upon God. ~~~
PAT ROBERTSON: Amen

These comments were made on September 13, 2001, on national television for public consumption. The White House's response: "[Bush] does not share those views, and believes that those remarks are inappropriate." It was good enough for America. Whatever we think of George W. Bush, we never supposed that he agreed with every last thing that the clergymen who support him said. (but for Barak Obama it appears that he is held to a higher standard, I would say if it was okay that Bush said it was inappropriate then Obama saying that he denounces the statements THAT SHOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH).

Then there's Rev. John Hagee, who said:

Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist. [God's Profits: Faith, Fraud and the Republican Crusade for Values Voters, Sarah Posner]

And...

All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that. [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06]

John McCain's response:

Well I think it's important to note that pastor John Hagee who has supported and endorsed my candidacy supports what I stand for and believe in. When he endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes. And I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee's spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel. That does not mean that

I support or endorse or agree with some of the things that Pastor John Hagee might have said or positions that he may have taken on other issues. I don't have to agree with everyone who endorses my candidacy. They are supporting my candidacy. I am not endorsing some of their positions. [McCain Media Availability, 2/29/08]

Now tell me is this fair and balanced

Posted by: theloanqueen1 | March 17, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

At one time I enjoyed olbermann-he was a voice for change--now he is a public relations director for obama and has fawned over his black candidate,afraid to treat him like Clinton because the ultra left like olbermann are afraid they'll be called racist--sad but true,olbermann is a fake and a coward-his attack on Clinton showed that--go back to sports for the good of our party--we don't need you anymore!!!

Posted by: billbigg | March 17, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

If KO really wanted John McCain for the next President he couldn't do a better job. I have never voted for a Republican for President, but this angry spewing by KO may convince me. This man was clearly losing it He is also dishonest. Why not have the guts to come out and say he supports Obama. If this anger keeps up the Republicans will lose. Either Clinton's or Obama's supporter will stay home. Republicans have to love this guy.

Posted by: wdrogseth | March 17, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

I thought I was a democrat because democrats were so much different than republicans!
After reading the narrow minded bigoted posts here, I can't see the difference in the two major parties!
The inaction and helplessness of the newly elected democrat congress should have convinced me long ago that the NO SPINE democrats are not up to the job of "turning our country around" as they always say at election time!
I am not going to waste my vote!... I am voting GREEN!

Posted by: mac1maniac | March 17, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Keith needs to man up and come right out and say he endorses Obama. His softball questions to Obama regarding Rev. Wright and his hate filled speeches deserves his "Worst Person in the World" award. Keith lost all credibility to me weeks ago and I turned his show off and won't be watching again. Unfortunately, Keith has turned into the Bill O'Reilly of MSNBC.

Posted by: mkbourgeois | March 17, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Keith still pretending that he is unbiased in the Democratic race??? He drug himself in Friday night, apparently sick, to soft-ball interview Obama on his "spiritual advisor". In spite of Olbermann's love for Obama and soft, leading questions, the truth continues to come out. Used to watch Olbermann and Matthews regularly, but I really cannot anymore. Watching hours of essentially political advertising for Obama and the anti-female bias, in general, is just too much! I vote Keith Olbermann the Worst Person in the Woooorrrllldddddd!!!!!

Posted by: SchneckDeb | March 17, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

This weekend I reviewed Olbermann's comments about the Ferraro debacle as well as the Rev Wright fallout. Olbermann isn't endorsing Obama? Please. He makes it a point to berate Clinton over comments made by Ferraro, yet gives Obama a softball interview in response to his 20 year pastor's hateful and divisive remarks. C'mon Keith...if you endore Obama, fine. At least be honest about it. Your attempt to disguise your preference is so transparent. That's why I don't watch you anymore. I caught your ridiculous "Special Comment" on YouTube and read the transcript of your coddling interview with Obama.

Posted by: sleon64 | March 17, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama may not win Pennsylvania, but for the poster(s) who continue to believe that the Clinton's did so and so for the black community, time for a reality check. What they did was institute policies that helped American people (not only black). It was the Clinton's policies who sent more black non-violent men to jail than anyone. The consequences have been devastating to our communities. Some people progressed and others didn't. I am 46 and I owe Geraldine nor Hillary nothing, absolutely nothing! This is the last time that I will be registered as a Democrat regardless of what happens. The Democratic Party just likes to get our votes and do nothing for their most loyal constituents. They should be feeling the heat right about now, because if Hillary steals this election or continues to inject race into the race, not only will black people stay home, so will people who are sick and tired of being taken for granted. She will lose anyway. I would not be surprised if John McCain winds up picking up a bigger percentage of the black vote than GW. Yeah, it is interesting! I believe Obama will pick up enough delegates in PA to keep her coming up with ways in which to win the nomination. Too bad we don't have any statesmen in the Democratic party to stand up to the Clintons!

Posted by: mom2sons | March 17, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Olberman had a strong liberal following, his clips were often You Tubed on some of my blogs. His ratings were not that good and he will suffer from his hits on Clinton. I'll never watch or listen to what he says again.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 17, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

I don't usually watch Olberman. Does he have a big viewership Does it really matter what he says? How much influence has he? He makes a very unfavorable impression on me.

Posted by: dwbalessr | March 17, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

PatrickNYC1 - Ha.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 17, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

merch61- you should go and listen to the Clinton's pastor. They attend the Methodist Foundry Church in Washington DC and you could find no pastor more in favor of diversity and fairness. He has even begun to perform committment services for gay couples. So go get some of his remarks and judge the Clinton's by them, I think they would be proud to stand by him any day of the week.

The issue of Olbermann is that he is just as much of a blowhard on the left as Limbaugh or any of the people on the right. The fact that our media today is made up of so many of these blowhards is a sad state of affairs. We have Olbermann, Matthews, Russert and the gang at Fox and CNN all telling us what we should be thinking and why. Too much time on their hands - too much airtime to fill- to much bs comes from all of them. It is a sad state of affairs for the nation and the public has to sift through all the crap to get at any real facts.

Olbermann on Clinton and Ferraro was rediculous. Farraro was 100% accurate in what she said only I think she said it wrong. And by the way she didn't say it to a public meeting or a Hillary rally but a paid speech on politics today.

What she should have said was that race and gender do make a difference in politics today. Obama himself said upon his election to the Senate in 2004 that he wouldn't run for President because he wasn't ready. That is on tape. But he did and his eloguence has gotten him to be where he is along with his being Black.

His huge pluralities in the Black vote wouldn't be there if he was just an eloquent white guy. But then Hillary wouldn't have her higher numbers among women if she wasn't one. But Hillary would have run and it was predicted based on her experience and then election and reelection to the Senate.

Ferraro didn't remind people that Obama made the 2004 speech at the Kerry convention because they were looking for a strong Black voice. So what? That is fine and moves our nation forward. But why would we pretend it is not the case.

I have lost jobs that went to a Black candidate or to a woman. That is part of life today and I actually think it is important to give those who have not had a fair chance before a chance now.

But Ferraro's remarks in essense were totally on target and correct- it was her way of phrasing them that wasn't politcally correct.

On the other hand Olbermann can be as much of a blowhard as he wants to and he gets the last word as he is the media.

Posted by: peterdc | March 17, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a liar.

Agent of change?

What a joke.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 17, 2008 02:29 PM
------------------
When you have die hard dems agreeing with you mike you know he's toast.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 17, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

bryant_flier2006

Good point.

How many days has it been since he promised to come on? 300+?

Obama is a liar.

Agent of change?

What a joke.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 17, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I would be cautious about just how much influence Olbermann has. I'm curious as to what the female demographics for the show are. I used to be a fan but had to stop watching when he became so vitriolic about Clinton. Many of my friends (Clinton and Obama supporters alike) can't watch Olbermann or MSNBC anymore. And we're progressives. It borders on the misogynistic with its anti-Clinton rhetoric. Almost clown-like at this point.

Posted by: jesscopen | March 17, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

When will Obama grow the grapefruits to sit down with Fox News Sunday, as he promised he would? His campaign is based on fast sound bites & lies that, perhaps even Obama himself, actually believes. He's a dilussional liberal.

Posted by: bryant_flier2006 | March 17, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

This article ends with a vieled threat that the Clinton campaign should dismiss Olbermann at their own peril? Ha! Olbermann incenses his female viewers at his own peril. Just ask Chris Matthews.

Posted by: brigittepj | March 17, 2008 02:13 PM
--------------------
His male ex-fans as well. What a douche.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 17, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Until recently, I was a huge fan of Keith Olbermann and looked forward to watching him every evening. During the past few months, his blantant sexism and downright bias against Clinton has left me no longer able to watch him without cringing.

His pompous rant against Geraldine Ferraro was entirely off the mark. She told the truth and if Keith believes that a white man or any woman who announced their candidacy for president after spending one year in the US Senate would still be in the race, he's a complete moron.

This article ends with a vieled threat that the Clinton campaign should dismiss Olbermann at their own peril? Ha! Olbermann incenses his female viewers at his own peril. Just ask Chris Matthews.

Posted by: brigittepj | March 17, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

That's the point Spectator.

You don't need a "black caucus" to be inclusive.

In fact, having a "black caucus" IS racist.

We shouldn't be recruiting members of congress because they are black. Nor should we hire, fire, promote, or demote for the same reason.

Only Democrats make issues into racial issues. Like when a black man runs for President.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 17, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Clintonista's need to come to reality. You people are as divisive as HIllary is. You need to look at the good interest of the party, and how we can get a democrat in the White House.

Posted by: tarch40 | March 17, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Keith Olberman has done more for the news/media industry than any of these right wing commedians. Rush Limbaugh is crazy, and Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reily are from another planet. Keith is a breath of fresh air which is hard to find on the tv. Keith matched with Chris Mathews are the best one two punch out there. Don't you people see the chain of events that has taken place to direct rational minded people like Chris and Keith to not support Hillary? Has Hillary done anything that will benefit the Democrat party in the general election in November? This is a historic race, and both candidates need to be very careful not to point out these differences. These differences have begun to consume the race after events such as Geraldine Ferraro's comments. Another example, Ohio demographics for voting, race played a factor to these voters 28% i think. Wisconsin race played a factor 11%. When these differences are pointed out whether it be race, or gender than voters focus on the wrong reasons not to vote for a candidate instead of the right reasons to vote for a candidate. Hillary needs to drop out of the race and save the Democratic Party before it's too late. The Democratic Party will not achieve victory in November with Billary as the nominee.

Posted by: tarch40 | March 17, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, but Olbermann is a joke. And he's creepy too.

Posted by: Bootenany | March 17, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"Myth: Only Republicans are racist.

Fact: Democrats are the true racists.

Imagine, a black man challenging a Clinton!

The Audacity!

Not only has race politics torn the Democrat party apart,"

Mike: Can you tell us when the Republican Congressional Black Caucus will be holding its next meeting? Thanks.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 17, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Myth: Only Republicans are racist.

Fact: Democrats are the true racists.

Imagine, a black man challenging a Clinton!

The Audacity!

Not only has race politics torn the Democrat party apart,

But gender politics has as well!

The American people can see how racist these people are.

We're the party for minorities. We want affirmative action, welfare, and hand-outs. We want your votes.

But we don't want you to run for office.

Especially against a Clinton.

The exploitation of minorities for votes and power is both shameless and morally repugnant.

The Democrat party is bankrupt. At this point, neither can beat John McCain (who is on his 8th visit to Iraq.)

So long, Hillary. See you in 4 years, Hussein Obama. Maybe by then the Democrat party will be purged of their closet (and open) racists.

Unlikely.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 17, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I know this will disappoint you and the Washington Post, but the comments reveal 90% opposed to Olberman's hysterical rant and 10% in favor.

Posted by: caesarganz | March 17, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

I used to watch Olbermann every night. It was a relief to know that someone was paying close attention to the mischief in the White House. However, I haven't been able watch lately as there seems to be an palpable undercurrent of (yes) sexism. On Keith's part, and almost every other male journalist. They seem to be amazed that they still have to cover this woman's (the nerve!) campaign. It has been very disappointing to see such a boy's club mentality clearly on view. I have started watching Dan Abrams instead. Dan is on after Keith. He is very smart and seems to be the only person covering both sides of the Democratic campaign. Thank you Dan Abrams!

Posted by: avidwpreader | March 17, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Olberman's claim that he was somehow reluctant to rant and rage is certainly belied by his vehement, near hysterical rhetoric. It is Olberman who has done the greatest harm to the Democratic party and its chances for the presidency in Nov. There are people who listen to you and believe...who have not read, heard, or understood the facts of the case. YOU, Olberman, give them their opinions, just as Limbaugh gives the right their opinions. Reluctant to rant and rage?! You looked forward to it. When you decide to endorse a candidate, will we be surprised if it is Obama?

Posted by: caesarganz | March 17, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama's whiney wife Michelle says that her husband's election as president would be the first reason to have "pride" in America, and complains that this country is "downright mean" and that she's having difficulty finding money for their daughters' piano lessons and summer camp.

Poor Michelle and Barack. Between the two of them, there's enough ivy-league and prep-school education for a small village.

Between them, Mr. and Mrs. Obama earn $480,000 a year (not including book royalties from The Audacity of Hype), but they're whining about how tough they have it to couples (of all ethnicities) who earn 48 grand -- or less.

Yes, we can! But not on a lousy half-million bucks a year.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 17, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you are the major reason I read the Washington Post.

I have to disagree with your opinion of Olberman. His ranting is despicable. He is not a balanced reporter at all. When he rants, I turn off the sound until it is over.

I can give him credit for having Obama explain his ties to Wright. What he did NOT do was question how a smart man such as Obama can be in church for 20 years and NEVER hear the pastor utter any of the remarks that have caused such a furor.

He needs to tone it down or get off the air.

Posted by: Kansas28 | March 17, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

another one about to go down:

'SINGAPORE (AP) - Shares of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. plunged in premarket trading Monday after a news report that Southeast Asia's largest bank instructed traders in an e-mail not to do business with the bank.'

and more good news from Iraq:

KERBALA, Iraq (Reuters) - A female suicide bomber killed 25 people and wounded 16 in an attack in the holy Shi'ite city of Kerbala in southern Iraq, police and health officials said on Monday.

The attack took place in a cafe in the centre of the city close to Shi'ite shrines, among the holiest sites in Shi'ite Islam, police said. Provincial governor Aqeel Khazali confirmed that a woman had carried out the bombing but had no further details.

Posted by: drindl | March 17, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

I love Keith Olberman--he's the most talented broadcaster on TV these days. He is opinionated, but good for him. He's had the guts to speak the truth about this dreadful, deceitful Administration and God bless him for that! Even though I still will vote for Hillary if she's our nominee, I think her campaign has not served her well and I think Obama will likely emerge as our candidate.

Posted by: jsquires | March 17, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Dear Chris and Commenters, Thank you for this enlightening exchange; I thought I was the only one who is deep in depression over the betrayal by Olberman. Many of the commenters in this discussion are the balanced people who should be conducting the coverage of this campaign. It is official. Olberman is Limbaugh. He isn't a counterpart; that would be fine. But he is Limbaugh.

Why is life so unfair?

Posted by: bluhvn | March 17, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

If one were to collate the reverend's views on what his congregation should think of the United States, and, further, his writs against Americans as "selfish, self-centered egotists who are arrogant and ignorant" with Michelle Obama's own astounding statements that hitherto she had no pride in the United States, and considered America "just downright mean," and Americans "guided by fear" and (in the words of the New Yorker profiler) who summed up her views as 'we're a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents' the echoes are eerie.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmE1M2U2NmQ3NzFlNDE1MmNlZDZkYjBjZjhiY2ZiYjQ=


I think his campaign has seriously underestimated the effect of the Wright tapes on the average American voter.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 17, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Despite the serial profession of a new politics, there is something Nixonian about Obama's recent disclaimers over his racist pastor's diatribes. At first he tried to blame the messenger:

"Here is what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor."

The problem is not cherries, Senator, but an entire orchard.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 17, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Nice try to change the subject, proudt2bdumb. but it doesn't work.

Your party is corrupt to the core. Vince foster? Oh my god -- that old joke? You are more pathetic than i thought posisble. Is there any propaganda you fools won't fall for?

Posted by: drindl | March 17, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

"Republicans so greedy they even steal from themselves"

Dems only steal from the taxpayers, which gives them the moral superiority argument, I uess.

Having $90,000 in the freezer is ok if you're a lib. And paying $80,000 for prostitutes is ok if you're a lib.

Don't challenge the progressive agenda, or you'll get end up shooting yourself in the back of the head or thrown under the bus. Just ask Vince Foster or Joe Lieberman.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 17, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Back in 2000, John W. McCain had an unintended moment of honesty and said:

'They are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country.

Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.'

...and ever since, McCain has shamelessly tried to disassociate himself from his own words, while the media helpfully looks the other way. He "mended fences" with Jerry Falwell, abandoned his own religion, now pretending to be a Baptist, and he "proudly" accepted the endorsement of John Hagee; a man who not only called the Catholic Church "the great wh*re" who conspired with Hitler to exterminate Jews, but who believes Hurricane Katrina was a righteous punishment, sent to the people of New Orleans for their sins.

And there's another endorsement McCain received that has been flying under the radar. Last month, McCain:

...campaigned in Cincinnati, where he appeared with the Rev. Rod Parsley of World Harvest Church of Columbus. McCain called Parsley a "spiritual guide," while Parsley later labeled McCain a "strong, true, consistent conservative."

Who is Rod Parsley? An Ohio pastor whose $600 million ministry's finances is cloaked in secrecy, a man who sells ""covenant swords" and "prayer cloths" -- that he claims will bring...freedom from financial problems as well as any physical or emotional ailments," a man who calls himself a high priest who only has to blow in a whistle to have "every demon is coming off your shoulders, outta your mind, outta your finances," and who wants to "restore Godly presence in government and culture and...will tear down the church-state wall."

Posted by: drindl | March 17, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Whoa -- it's hard to overstate how bad the audit findings are for the poor, beleaguered NRCC, which just lost Denny Hastert's old seat in a special election, too. You just have to wonder, how is it possible the NRCC's treasurer stole one million dollars and nobody noticed anything?

The Post story notes this fact:

However, [the auditor] said that the year-end report filed with the Federal Election Commission in 2006 overstated the NRCC's actual cash on hand by $990,000.

What the story doesn't say is that the NRCC's stated cash on hand was only $1,401,618 -- meaning that if the discrepancy represents what the treasurer stole, which it likely does, then he simply stole most of the NRCC's money. Kind of makes you think of a high school election in which the candidate's buddy makes off with the cash box, except it's not a high school candidate, it's a national party.'

Republicans so greedy they even steal from themselves. LOL.

Posted by: drindl | March 17, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Senator Obama, whose campaign only last year said that he was "proud of his pastor and his church," is now saying that he wasn't aware of the angry, reckless, anti-American, and racially divisive comments by Reverend Wright.

But that claim stretches credulity.

Reverend Wright, after all, is not a stranger who is offering up a presidential-year endorsement. Wright has instead played a pivotal role in Obama's life -- including marrying Barack and Michelle Obama, baptizing their two children, and inspiring the title of Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTM4MGVjNzBhMDMxYWI3NjA3NTkzNTA0NjQ0NWJjMDM=


Maybe Obama was considering using "God Damn America" for the title of his book, but it didn't focus-group so well.

And on the matter of "guilt by association," here's a thought experiment. Assume that the spiritual leader and pastor of the church George W. Bush or John McCain attended was, say, a white supremacist or an anti-gay bigot. Do you think that there would be any hesitancy among the press to push the "guilt by association" storyline?

I rather doubt it.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 17, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

A NEW DAY, A NEW HIGH FOR OIL, A NEW LOW FOR THE DOLLAR.

Get used to it folks. This is what Republican rule has done to us. Destroyed not only our own ecomony but on the wya to destroying the entire world's.

Source: Reuters

'TOKYO (Reuters) - Oil jumped to a record above $111 a barrel on Monday, as a surprise weekend cut in the Federal Reserve discount rate and the fire sale of stricken U.S. investment bank Bear Stearns (BSC.N) sent the dollar to all-time lows.'

Posted by: drindl | March 17, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Keith is the lowest-rated cable news show in that time slot.

Hardly an "icon".

This article is a joke.

Keith sportscaster is a joke.

Can we get back to some real issues?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 17, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

You are fawning over Keith. Please. Enough already. The man has no one on his show that does not agree with him.

Yes, I became familiar with you from his show. But I am done with him. My whole family is done with him.

He has his nerve to attack Ferraro and Clinton and accuse them of divisiveness? What does he think he has done? He is a joke. He is in love with Obama.

As a previous poster pointed out, he attacks Clinton and Ferraro with his self-righteous rant, but with Obama, he simply gives him a forum to try and explain away the most recent bombshell.

Had Clinton been exposed as attending such a racist, divisive church, Olbermann probably would have attacked her -- as he has for months -- but because it is his little Obama, he offers him a slot to talk things out.

I used to love his show, and I loved MSNBC. I loved Chris Matthews. But they are ridiculously irresponsible in the way they have latched onto Obama.

Had they done their job, the public would not just be finding out about Obama and his radical background, but no, they were so busy drooling over him, that if he winds up being the nominee, the White House is lost to the republicans. Middle America is not going to elect a black man who is a member of a radical black church, as they should't. Just as they should not elect a white person that attends a "White Pride" white-supremacy church.

And you can blame the press for that. I have never been so disgusted in my life as I am about their behavior in this election. I hope Olbermann tanks. I am sure he has lost half of his audience.

Posted by: monique4hillary | March 17, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Oh Goracle, You are the only one who can help rescue the party from this quagmire of our nominating process. This must be our just payback, this wrath you have called down on us eco-sinners.

We have not acted in the new socially correct green fashion. Please forgive us, Oh Goracle, for consuming the things we ought not to have consumed, for telling little green lies, and help bring peace and love to the Dem party forever.

Signed, the Libs

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 17, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

'Marc Ambinder reports Bill Kristol's NYT column today contains "a major, prejudicial error." Kristol asserts that Obama "was in fact in the pews" when pastor Jeremiah Wright blamed the "arrogance" of the "United States of White America" for much of the world's suffering. Kristol's "source" for the claim is a story reported by the right-wing publication Newsmax. Ambinder writes:

The error is in trusting the source without checking.

The truth is that Obama did not attend church on July 22.

He was on his way to campaign in Miami.

(Here is some video evidence.) This was before he signed an agreement forbidding himself from campaigning in Florida.

Sadly, this isn't Kristol's first error. He misattributed a quote in his first column for the paper.'

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/17/kristol-commits-major-error-in-nyt-column/

Posted by: drindl | March 17, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

gee i thought we were leaving iraq when they wanted us to:

'McClatchy reports on these "worms in the water" five years after "liberation":

To them, the real crime is that five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, they still swelter in the summer and freeze in the winter because of a lack of electricity. Government rations are inevitably late, incomplete or expired. Garbage piles up for days, sometimes weeks, emanating toxic fumes.

The list goes on: black-market fuel, phone bills for land lines that haven't worked in years, education and health-care systems degraded by the flight of thousands of Iraq's best teachers and doctors. [...]

In some poor areas of Baghdad, militias or Iranian-backed charities have become the main source of propane tanks, food staples, garbage collection and other services that the government should provide.

A new poll for BBC, ABC, ARD and NHK finds that a majority of Iraqis [72 percent] oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq and believe that these troops are making the security situation worse. A plurality want foreign forces to leave immediately.'

Posted by: drindl | March 17, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

'Signed, The Libs'

truly pathetic. go back to your coloring books..

Posted by: drindl | March 17, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

328 comments? Wow, this is a hot topic, for sure. Sorry I got in on the bottom.

For anyone who previously doubted that the Republicans are voting for Hillary in the primaries, as a tactic to make sure they will have her around to beat on after the convention, just go to this Boston Globe article.
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=352464978493976133

This alone should make every loyal Democrat determined to support Obama, and not in disrespect for Hillary, but in simple, logical strategy intended to beat Mccain and his Rovian puppet-masters.

And calling Keith "sexist" because he took Hillary to task, is a knee-slapper.

Posted by: JEP7 | March 17, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

'Obama's a liar, and a conceited liar at that.'

you mean ' uppity' right? just say it.

Posted by: drindl | March 17, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Again, when you Dems have dicided on a nominee...anyone, someone, for the love of Pete!...then get back to us about the general election issues.

Until then, you are stuck in your own mud and your immediate attention is needed.

Oh great and mighty DNC leader Howard Dean, please save us from ourselves.

Signed, The Libs

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 17, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

And John McCain is the biggest hypocrite, flipflopper and panderer that's ever run for office.

And anyone who would read the incoherent babblings and rantings of Kristol has an advanced case of brain rot.

Posted by: drindl | March 17, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Back in 2000, John W. McCain had an unintended moment of honesty and said:

'They are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country.

Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.'

...and ever since, McCain has shamelessly tried to disassociate himself from his own words, while the media helpfully looks the other way. He "mended fences" with Jerry Falwell, abandoned his own religion, now pretending to be a Baptist, and he "proudly" accepted the endorsement of John Hagee; a man who not only called the Catholic Church "the great wh*re" who conspired with Hitler to exterminate Jews, but who believes Hurricane Katrina was a righteous punishment, sent to the people of New Orleans for their sins.

And there's another endorsement McCain received that has been flying under the radar. Last month, McCain:

...campaigned in Cincinnati, where he appeared with the Rev. Rod Parsley of World Harvest Church of Columbus. McCain called Parsley a "spiritual guide," while Parsley later labeled McCain a "strong, true, consistent conservative."

Who is Rod Parsley? An Ohio pastor whose $600 million ministry's finances is cloaked in secrecy, a man who sells ""covenant swords" and "prayer cloths" -- that he claims will bring...freedom from financial problems as well as any physical or emotional ailments," a man who calls himself a high priest who only has to blow in a whistle to have "every demon is coming off your shoulders, outta your mind, outta your finances," and who wants to "restore Godly presence in government and culture and...will tear down the church-state wall."

Posted by: drindl | March 17, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

"This doesn't mean that Obama agrees with Wright's thoroughgoing and conspiracy-heavy anti-Americanism. Rather, Obama seems to have seen, early in his career, the utility of joining a prominent church that would help him establish political roots in the community in which he lives.

Now he sees the utility of distancing himself from that church.

Obama's behavior in dealing with Wright is consistent with that of a politician who often voted "present" in the Illinois State Legislature for the sake of his future political viability.

The more you learn about him, the more Obama seems to be a conventionally opportunistic politician, impressively smart and disciplined, who has put together a good political career and a terrific presidential campaign.

But there's not much audacity of hope there.

There's the calculation of ambition, and the construction of artifice, mixed in with a dash of deceit -- all covered over with the great conceit that this campaign, and this candidate, are different."


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17kristol.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


Obama's a liar, and a conceited liar at that.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 17, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Your post is as outrageous as Olbermann's rant. His ratings like all of MSNBC's are at the bottom of the cable ratings. You fail to mention that he has lost probably half of his audience over his biased reporting of the Democratic campaign. I stopped watching at least 5 weeks ago and in reading blog traffic note that many others have also. He can rant and rave about O'Reilly all that he wants, but O'Reilly is still on top and Olbermann is losing viewers. Your appearances obviously aren't helping either. I am a lifelong Democrat and really resent what someone like Olbermann is doing to the party.

Posted by: JWALLS1 | March 17, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

and john mccain wants this preacher thing to go away as well -- because he's got a big problem too if the press wants to continue to talk about it. his preacher supporters are equally big-mouthed and racist -- indeed, they are CULTISTS. but there's a few STATES he will lose if he repudiates them.

'I'm not sure if this will work or not. But here's a youtube of John McCain essentially saying, "I do know Senator Obama, he does not share those views." This is on Fox directly to Sean Hannity's face.

He goes on to say that there are a lot surrogates that say things on both campaigns that the candidates clearly don't agree with. In fact, at one point he sighs as he seems annoyed that this is even an issue.

I have two thoughts on this. One, McCain is trying the good cop/bad cop thing where the 527s will be the bad cop. Two, he actually is annoyed that this is an issue - he himself has a problem with it as well.

If that doesn't work, here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQquSOnlxJ8

Posted by: drindl | March 17, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Shame on the brainless republicans who keep flogging this stupid, trivial story when our financial markets are melting down and our people are still being pointlessly sacrificed in this savagely pointless 'war.' and Cheney is over in Iraq, begging Iraqis to do american oil companies bidding -- but the Iraqi government is too corrupt and self-interested to do that anymore... and of course he's over there at the same time as McCain, using taxpayer money to help the repulican, of course... corruption as usual.

'The Iraqis do not yet have a law for sharing the nation's oil wealth among the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, a law that the Bush administration believes will trigger multinational energy companies to invest in exploration and production in Iraq.

Also unfinished is a plan for new provincial elections. Iraq's presidential council, which must give its nod to laws passed by the Iraqi parliament, rejected a plan for new elections last month, shipping it back to the legislature.

The rejection, a setback to the U.S. campaign for national reconciliation, came despite Cheney's last-minute phone call to the main holdout on the three-member panel: Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi, a Shiite. Cheney was expected to speak with Abdul-Mahdi and the other two members of the council, President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, and Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, while in Iraq.

The war is entering its sixth year.'

Posted by: drindl | March 17, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

"It's becoming clear that Obama has been less than candid in addressing his relationship to his pastor, Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ.

For example, Obama claimed Friday that "the statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity."

Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22. That's when Wright blamed the "arrogance" of the "United States of White America" for much of the world's suffering, especially the oppression of blacks.

In any case, given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright's preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17kristol.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


When you Dems have finally decided on a nominee, perhaps you can join the conversation about important issues.

Until then, carry on with your identity-politics and nominating process SNAFUs. It's all working out so well.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 17, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Obama Attended Hate America Sermon

Contrary to Senator Barack Obama's claim that he never heard his pastor Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. preach hatred of America, Obama was in the pews last July 22 when the minister blamed the "white arrogance" of America's Caucasian majority for the world's suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. . . .

In fact, Obama was present in the South Side Chicago church on July 22 last year when Jim Davis, a freelance correspondent for Newsmax, attended services along with Obama. In his sermon that day, Wright tore into America, referring to the "United States of White America" and lacing his sermon with expletives as Obama listened.

Hearing Wright's attacks on his own country, Obama had the opportunity to walk out, but Davis said the senator sat in his pew and nodded in agreement.

Obama is now a proven liar. He was sitting there and nodding in agreement at the racist black-separatist Anti-American rhetoric coming from that preacher.

He was nodding and clapping for 20 years at the disgusting divisive, non-unifying, non-Christian, non-patriotic message that Jeremiah Wright has inculcated the black community with.

Shame on Wright for brainwashing those parishoners against their own country. And shame on Obama for listening to it and for nodding in agreement.

Even Oprah Winfrey stopped going to this church. Obama hasn't the courage to really stand up against any of it.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 17, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

'Now last evidently you didn't have anyone that died on those planes or in the buildings how about those little kids that were killed when the plane crashed into the Pentegon, shame on you for thinking its alright to dam America'

this is the level of illiteracy attained by republicans. amazing they can even manage to tie their shoes.

Posted by: drindl | March 17, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

First of all I used to watch MSMBC I thought they were more fair but then watching them for a while ,all the programs are one sided so I watch Fox
If you think that obama did not know what his pastor preached from the pulpit only whhen Obama wasn't there you are short of a full deck Now last evidently you didn't have anyone that died on those planes or in the buildings how about those little kids that were killed when the plane crashed into the Pentegon, shame on you for thinking its alright to dam America

Posted by: yankeenana2 | March 17, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

five years later and Iraq continues to deteriorate...

'On April 1, 2007, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) strolled through the
open-air Shorja market in Baghdad in an effort to prove that Americans are "not getting the full picture" of what's going on in Iraq. In a press conference after his Baghdad tour, McCain told a reporter that his visit to the market was proof that people could "walk freely" in parts of Baghdad.

What McCain failed to mention was that he was accompanied by "100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead." He also appeared to be wearing a bulletproof vest during his visit.

Since that trip, McCain has claimed that the situation in Iraq has improved even more. A few months ago, McCain claimed that "we've succeeded militarily" in Iraq. Things, of course, are going so well, that he wants to keep U.S. troops there for at least 100 years.

McCain is now back in Iraq for a "surprise visit with Iraqi and American diplomatic and military leaders." He is joined by fellow Iraq war defenders Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). But it's unlikely they will be visiting the Shorja market again. Today, CNN reported that they tried to visit the Shorja market, but it was too unsafe and they were unable to go:

We got close to that marketplace today, Jim, but our own security advisers here in Iraq did not want us to go there. They didn't believe it was safe for an American to be in that area'

You see, it's now controlled by Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, like much of Iraq.

Posted by: drindl | March 17, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

'If the tables were turned and a Republican had a similar relationship with an equally racist white preacher, the media would be all over it. Instead, Obama is allowed to get away with this.

Part of the problem is, the 'church' the guy leads is non-denominational; all of the doctrine and direction comes from the pulpit, the cult of personality embodied by the preacher.'

McCain has sucked up to and sought the support of several 'preachers' of the most vile, hateful cults of 'personality' imaginable. Theology-school dropouts and garden variety self-annointed sleazy money-grubbing Elmer Gantrys. Catholicc and oman-hating, racist, sexist end-times lunatics. And, oh yes, the Confederate flag, he has embraced that too, now. And the media has barely mentioned it. Yet this Wright thing is all over the front pages. Naturally. He's a democrat, the media can't wait to slime him.

As for Olberman, how can anyone complain about him when there are legions of ranters far worse than him on the radical right? And of course, the slimy Drudge.

As for you proud, 'stoopid' says it all.

'Probably because most "Progressives" are selling drugs, being prostitutes, or standing in WIC lines. Too busy to watch the news.'

And you cons? Too stupid to understand the news. Hell, you can't even stay inside the lines in your coloring books.

Posted by: drindl | March 17, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Olbermann is nothing but a sportscaster douche bag and we all know it.

If he had half the viewership of OReilly, maybe we can call him "Iconic".

Too bad "Progressives" just don't possess the part of their brain that allows them to think, discuss, listen, and argue. Hence, no talk radio. It's too advanced for the "Progressive" (liberal) mind.

His show is a joke, Chris. I'm sorry you have to go on it. Maybe you should consider spending time with real journalists.

NBC, MSNBC is a joke. It's the least-watched cable news network. Probably because most "Progressives" are selling drugs, being prostitutes, or standing in WIC lines. Too busy to watch the news.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 17, 2008 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Many Republicans are voting for Hillary:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/

For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.

The Republican meanness is alive and well. They won't prolong the Dem battle and leave the spotlight off the 100-year-Iraq war-loving, in-bed-with-lobbyists, "let them eat cake" McCain.

Posted by: DrSubtle | March 17, 2008 7:22 AM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are infantile.

The cover their eyes and ears to keep out information they don't want to hear.

I and other readers have posed links to news reports from Chicago TV and newspapers about Obama's slums.

No matter how much evidence Obana's supporters see, they just cover their eyes and ears and sing "LA LA LA"

The truth is in the public record.

The evidence has been posted over and over.

The truth will be the end of the "cult of Obama"

Posted by: svreader | March 15, 2008 08:59 PM
-----------------------

Classic self fulfilling prophecy.
If one denies a truth often enough they become convinced that that truth is actually a lie.
As far as Obama is concerned? He would be a successful actor in Hollywood. Maybe he would consider joining L. Ron's exclusive "club" by donating what ever is left from his campaign ride? Since his blathering mouthed "uncle" is retiring he needs to find a new male role model.

Posted by: seedobecome | March 17, 2008 5:18 AM | Report abuse

Deval Patrick, you know the Gov. of Mass. that his good friend Obama plagiarized in his inspirational speeches, said yesterday on Face The Nation that the super delegates should vote supporting their district voters. So Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Gov. Patrick will vote for Hillary Clinton, right? She did win in the Mass. primary didn't she? Two will vote according to their spoken (Obama) commitment, one will vote according to cultural (Obama) similarity.
A man of honor keeps his word. So what happened to the Mass. voter support Patick spoke about today? So much for honor.

Posted by: seedobecome | March 17, 2008 5:05 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, you made a point worth addressing when you brought up McCain's wife and her drug problems. Had Michelle Obama went through a drug addiction phase like that, it would have been bad - very, very bad for Obama's presidential ambitions.

I think it's interesting to consider how different things would be if we were talking about Michelle Obama. There would undoubtedly be a lot prejudice aimed at her.

I would like to see some more coverage on Cindy's past drug problems. It's an important issue, I think, because it raises questions about McCain's character. Who among us would stay married to our spouse if we found out they had such serious problems with drugs? Not me. Her behavior was totally inexusable.

Posted by: mahmud010 | March 17, 2008 4:42 AM | Report abuse

Olbermann really is an ideologue. I hope nobody mistakes his views for objectivity. I think he's being honest when he denies he's stumping for Obama. Olbermann, like most liberals, has become so sensitive to any possibility of racism, no matter how small, that he dismisses an entire argument without thinking twice about it. This is insane. There were a few problems with Ferraro's comments, but she nevertheless raised an interesting point.

But in all fairness to Olbermann, I think the comparison to Rush Limbaugh is a bit over the top. One would be hard pressed to find an analogue to Limbaugh. Sometimes I wonder how he's managed to keep it together for so many years. I'm always expecting to hear of him having a nervous breakdown or something.

Olbermann, in my opinion, seems more like a left-wing Bill O'Reilly. Much more tame, much less deluded than Rush. But whatever one's view of the Limbaugh comparison, CC has a point when he says, "...underestimate the power of Limbaugh at your own peril."

Posted by: mahmud010 | March 17, 2008 4:13 AM | Report abuse

I love how the Obamabots come on here and make accusations that they can never prove about the Clinton's but when FACTS of Obama's friendship with a black militant separatist that hates the US and Isreal not to mention white people, they say "Oh but look at what the Clinton's did! The Clinton's didn't go to KKK rallies and if they did I would ask them to step out of the race> they didn't, so I'm asking Obama's racist sermon listening ass to get out. Democrats want the white house and the road doesn't lead through Obama anymore.

Posted by: hwebb5454 | March 17, 2008 3:36 AM | Report abuse

I am with the multitude who agree with Ferraro's observation.

I am not a white person, but I can't help but further notice that the mentality among a number of black voters is that if one doesn't like Obama, the person is a racist. But if 90% of black voters vote for Obama, are they not being racist themselves? Is racism only one-way, that is only directed among blacks?

Something to think about... personally, I think the Obama supporters are starting to bully the rest of us.

Posted by: CPCook | March 17, 2008 3:28 AM | Report abuse

Keith O. is a subpar imitation of what a true professional commentator should be. I remember when he was the up and coming super analyst in ESPN. About the only good thing he has going for him is that he dislikes Clinton. And that for me is enough not to totally bash the guy. At least for now.

The main thing right now is to continue the push of eliminating Hillary Clinton from the democratic race. If enough people are persuaded not to vote for Hillary then all the better.

Posted by: delakile | March 17, 2008 2:52 AM | Report abuse

FORGET CLINTON/OBAMA DISCUSS OUR PRE-ORDAINED FUTURE OF PEACE AND PROSPERITY.

We are one diverse nation united by our ability to protect ourselves by the best and very

effective means: Our Defense Department. Our most important institution: the U.S.A

Defense Department was and is still the leader in all economic and civil rights

advancement in our society. The best way to strengthen our money: the mighty U.S dollar

at home and abroad, while regaining the confidence of a great majority of our citizens

(black, white, green, blue and red), investors and bankers is through the unabashed

display of our innovatively strong and overwhelming military might.

The next President of the USA, should bomb Iran back into the Stone Age. He, who is

most likely to be our own war hero, the wise visionary, President McCain should show

no mercy, whatsoever. Scorch all Iranian territory; a brilliant war policy that will require

no boots on the ground, which would save us blood and treasure, and just as importantly

no nuclear armed Iran. Well President McCain is no great singer: "Bomb, Bomb Iran"

(Barbara Ann song), we should be elated that this song will be our humbled rallying cry

for permanent and lasting peace in the Middle East. For our children's future and for

the sake of affirmatively securing long-lasting peace President McCain should do

relentless aerial bombing raids to rid us of this axis of evil Iranian problem, thus all

neighbors of Iran will come to fear our ruthless stick it to you diplomacy and dutifully

fall in line and obey the future we envisioned for them. To be loved and feared is ideal

but in our present reality there is only one option now and the near future and the best

option for us is to be greatly feared. Subsequently, President McCain should allow the

Jewish Israelis to push back and remove all Palestinians out of the Holy Land once and

for all eternity, even the treacherous enemy within: so-called Arab-Israelis. Let the Arabs

find room among their population for those Palestinians and those duplicitous Arab-

Israelis. If we don't support President McCain in this very solemn but resourcefully self-

preserving patriotic resolve, the chickens from the decades of failed Middle East policies

will surely come home to roost on us all.

No more 911s, pre-emption is the best prevention!!!

Posted by: rasgrand | March 17, 2008 2:07 AM | Report abuse

.... I agree with everything Ferraro has said about Obama...100%, If Obama were a white man...with the same record he wouldn't have gotten this far.

Posted by: tmcinroy | March 15, 2008 03:30 PM

Let's say that everything about Obama is the same: same abilities, talents, experience, 2 years in Senate, 8 years in the Illinois legislature, Constitutional lawyer, community organizer - even his faults. The only thing different is Obama is a white man. I disagree with Ferraro and you. Hillary would be but a memory. Obama would have all the delegates he needed to get the nomination and take the presidential election by 30 points. Geraldine Ferraro is so angry and frustrated that Hillary is not the inevitable candidate she expected her to be that she brought up the same argument against Obama that she brought up against Jesse Jackson when he was running. She has definite racist tendencies.

Posted by: lynettema | March 17, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

If anyone speaks the truth to the Clintons, there is always h*ll to pay. I watched both nights when he scolded Clinton for not putting a leash on Ferraro AND when he interviewed Obama. Olbermann asked very pointed questions and did not seem amused. Obama had already condemned the words of his own pastor and fired him from the campaign. Hillary let Ferraro go on for 4 days before finally and reluctantly letting her go. This after Hillary demanded Obama fire his advisor for calling her a monster. I believe Olbermann's critique probably had some affect.

Posted by: lynettema | March 17, 2008 1:24 AM | Report abuse

I used to watch KO every night, but no more. He has joined the MSNBC Chapter of the Obama Fan Club, and his diatribe against Hillary Clinton was a disgrace. David Duke? South Africa? Please! He undercuts Clinton at every opportunity, and his guests can be counted on to do the same.

I have stopped watching MSNBC completely. I'm back at CNN, which while not perfect, is a lot fairer than MSNBC.

Posted by: myskylark | March 17, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

God Bless that Keith Olbermann. He's the Edward C. Marrow of our time.

Posted by: hardline | March 17, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Comment: BREAKING NEWS ALERT
http://newsmax.com/kessler/Obama_hat.../16/80870.html

???Obama Attended Hate America Sermon

Sunday, March 16, 2008 7:14 PM

By: Ronald Kessler

Contrary to Senator Barack Obama???s claim that he never heard his pastor Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. preach hatred of America, Obama was in the pews last July 22 when the minister blamed the ???white arrogance??? of America???s Caucasian majority for the world???s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. . . . In fact, Obama was present in the South Side Chicago church on July 22 last year when Jim Davis, a freelance correspondent for Newsmax, attended services along with Obama. In his sermon that day, Wright tore into America, referring to the ???United States of White America??? and lacing his sermon with expletives as Obama listened. Hearing Wright???s attacks on his own country, Obama had the opportunity to walk out, but Davis said the senator sat in his pew and nodded in agreement. ???

*********
BREAKING NEWS ALERT - UPDATE
A copy of the Trinity United Church of Christ bulletin for July 22, 2007, sermon atttended by U.S. Senator Barack Obama included a letter from a Hamas leader, an organization the U.S. has declared to be a sponsor of state terrorism. This is just one quote from the church bulletin "The sticking point of 'recognition' has been used as a litmus test to judge Palestinians. Yet as I have said before, a state may have a right to exist, but not absolutely at the expense of other states, or more important, at the expense of millions of human individuals and their rights to justice. Why should anyone concede Israel???s 'right' to exist, when it has never even acknowledged the foundational crimes of murder and ethnic cleansing by means of which Israel took our towns and villages, our farms and orchards, and made us a nation of refugees?

Posted by: scott.moon | March 17, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Ex-Wife of Pardoned Fugitive Gave $400,000 to Clinton Library

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,98756,00.html

Posted by: sbgamatt | March 16, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Olbermann is what we progressives has been dying for. Thanks for keep them honest, Keith. Hillary has gotten totally out of line and she needed to be put in her place.

Posted by: freeworld23 | March 16, 2008 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Americans can no longer trust the agenda driven media (especially those who are so far to the left such as Keith Oberman of MSNBC) to present the truth. Voters must begin to ask many questions of Barack Obama who is attempting to win the White House in 2009. We must begin to ask "who is Barack Obama?"

The following excerpt is from Obama's book titled Dreams from My Father; "I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets."

Obviously, aside from Obama's current esoteric position about transcending race- the important question is "why surround your self with Marxist professors? Simply put- Marxism is the system of socialism of which the dominant feature is public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. How does this relate to America, which is based upon Capitalism?

Therefore, who would Obama as President surround himself with for advisors? Would it be the Marxist Socialists from the Left? Or worse?

Obama just didn't join any church- he intentionally joined a "militant black nationalist one." Rev. Wright preaches a "black" gospel or "Black Liberation Theology" in the black community. It is the same Marxist, revolutionary, humanistic philosophy found in South American Liberation Theology and has no more claim for a scriptural basis than it did in South America.

Therefore, it should be no surprise why Obama chose the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to join his campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination for President. It should be no surprise why Barack and Michelle Obama chose Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ 20-years ago. When Rev. Jeremiah Wright speaks he reflects the mind-set of his congregation which includes Michelle and Barack Obama. People attend houses of worship which make them feel comfortable

The question is not should Obama be judged by his pastor's comments for the past 20 years- It is no secret Rev. Jeremiah Wright courts nefarious people (i.e., Farrakhan and Momar Kadafi) who hold anti-Semitic, anti-white prejudges and beliefs which are un-American and ungodly. but, are Barack Obama and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright inseperable in belief, theology and philosophy?

The Democratic Party leadership along with the American voters had better think about the consequences before continuing down this road of supporting Barack Obama.

JN in NY

Posted by: redjeep1 | March 16, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Writers Strike at Dailykos:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/15/clinton-s...


Join the AFCB (American Federation of Concerned Bloggers), those sick and tired of the constant Hillary bashing. Hopefully those here can keep the discussions civil.

Posted by: leichtman | March 16, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

It seems the Clintons are apparently involved in the disappearance of the CFO of the Clinton Library Builder. Very suspicious


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/Mar/14/clinton-library-builders-cfo-vanishes-leaving-ques/

Posted by: sbgamatt | March 16, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

DrSubtle,
This subject is about talked to death. I think whoever is going to move from or to the candidate over this Rev. Wright issue and Olbermann's Special Comment have moved and now its back to the trenches until the next event.

And there will be more. The Republicans went to Obama's church and bought the videos that were later played on Fox, on the blogs and finally on all the news shows.

Its only March. Who knows what all they are holding for timed release to sink the good Ship Obama.

We respectfully disagree on this one. I think that a person who is not just a pastor or on your campaign committee, but someone who is a self described spiritual mentor, the man who led Obama to Jesus, and turns out to freely god dam America from the pulpit will turn off a lot of voters in Middle America.

If Hagee is McCain's spiritual mentor and a 20 year associate and is a Catholic Hater, then I have just one more reason to vote against McCain. Maybe McCain has an anti-Catholic animus as well.

But back to more important criteria for electing presidents like resurrecting the Constitution of the United States.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 16, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

We are at a unique juncture in this country as we try to move away from the Era of George W. Bush. Bush has done considerable damage to the institutions of the United States Government, to our trust in our government's ability to function even with regard to routine matters, like keeping the food supply safe, testing drugs, or cleaning up after hurricanes. Bush has ruined the reputation of the country in the international community.

In a way, Bush is a radical outgrowth of the Bill Clinton Administration which preceded it.

Bush drew two lines of advance away from the Clinton years:

1. Any thing that Clinton was for, Bush would be against:
a. Clinton raised taxes - Bush cut them
b. Clinton was an internationalist - Bush would be a unilateralist;
c. Clinton worked for an Israeli-Palestinian Peace - Bush would ignore the Peace talks and let the parties kill each other.
d. Clinton worked on nation building in Kosovo - Bush worked in nation deconstructing in Iraq.

2. Bush saw Clinton do illegal things in office like lie in his deposition, so Bush carried that several steps forward,

3. Clinton used the trappings of office to retain office, like renting out the Lincoln Bedroom to contributors, Bush used his Justice Department and other branches of government to reward supporters and to punish political opponents.

As we move away from the George W. Bush years, we have an Executive Branch that has crossed many red lines which should never have been crossed.

a. Bush has developed this Unitary Executive idea where he claims that the Executive Branch has an equal right to declare laws unconstitutional with the Judicial Branch. Bush has, through Signing Statements, frustrated the will of congress by his own intrepretation of the laws in a manner which does not accord the Courts their right to pass on the constitutionality of his interpretation.

b. Bush has walked all over not just the Separation of Powers Doctrine in the Consitution, but habeas corpus, freedom of speech, the right to counsel, the right to a trial, the right of privacy. In short, the Bill of Rights, particularly The First Amendment, The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments and the Eighth Amendment all have been gutted by Bush.

c. Internationally, Bush has acted in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by his agreement with India. He has violated the UN Charter and the Laws of War with his invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Bush has committed many acts which would warrant impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors, but will likely make it to the end of his term without ever having been held accountable for the violence done to the United States and its democratic institutions.

The failure to hold Bush accountable is creating a dangerous precedent. Had Bush been impeached and removed, then the institutions of government would have worked as a deterrent to future presidents thinking that they could take the same trip across the red lines with impunity. But Congress failed in its duty to conduct oversight while it was under Republican control. And since it has been under Democratic Control, it has defaulted in its duty and obligation to impeach Bush and Cheney for their violations of law which far exceed Clinton's deposition testimony given in the Paula Jones civil lawsuit, which by the way, the Bush operatives pushed while they were out of power.

This fact of non-accountability, places a huge burden on the successor of Bush. Bush's successor will face this fork in the road where he can either act on the precedent laid down by Bush to act illegally with impunity, or he or she can act to voluntarily rein in the powers of the Presidency back to within the Constitutional bounds and limits within which the Office has existed throughout the history of the Republic.

Should we get a President who observes the red lines as Bush has now created them, then the legacy of the Bush Era will be its continuation, a usurpation of the Constitution by a run away Executive Branch. Nothing less than the future of Constitutional government is at stake with whom we elect to succeed Bush.

Who do you trust? Which candidate is the most power hungry and the most like to continue and further the abuses of power we have seen in the Bush Era?

It is a consideration that a thinking voter must consider.

Barak Obama? We don't know him, but we sure are getting to know the people around him. I think they are more ambitious for power that Barak is. Can he control them?


Hillary Clinton? She was there when Bill Clinton started the precedent that Bush put on steroids. She was the first and primary victim of his sexual indescretions, followed by Al Gore, the Democatic Party, and the people of the United States. Do I trust her to clean up this mess, to rein in the powers of the office? Maybe only a woman can do this as I know of no man who will not exert as much power as he can legally get away with.

John McCain? McCain, the Maverick, has sold himself to the same corporate overseers who created Bush and the Bush Administration. He has the corporate yoke around his neck and voluntarily allowed it to be put there as the price to be paid for winning the nomination. Should he buck up under it once he gets elected, he may not make it to 2012. Who will he pick for VP, or who will be picked for him by the Corporatists who have taken over the Government and wish to continue management of it?

On this criteria, as of now, I have to be for Hillary Clinton as the candidate most likely to voluntarily rein in the powers of the Presidency from the illegal bounds to which Bush and Cheney have pushed things.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 16, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

For me people to hear and listen to Keith "My best days were before I got fired from ESPN" Olbermann they would have to watch MSNBC and I don't think that they five people who do so are going to be able to help Obama too much anyway.

Posted by: matthewcheadle | March 16, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

@pkmc, like I keep saying, what a minister or a minister's uncle says is IRRELEVANT. Any long harangues in the name of free speech will not convince anybody and you are just wasting your time.

As for your other statement, "And, as a Catholic person myself, I greatly resent the proposition put forth that Catholic priests have been outted as Pedophiles and Catholic candidates have not been called to account in the same way that Obama has been called to account for Rev. Wright."

What do you think of McCain's connection to Rev. Hagee, the Catholic hater?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/john-hagees-mccain-endor_n_89189.html

Do you think McCain has been vetted enough about his connections to Rev. Hagee?

All of this I still think is besides the point. It does not make Hillary, McCain or Obama one bit more or less qualified. That we're all willing to argue about this for so long shows how desperate some people are for power.

Posted by: DrSubtle | March 16, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Senator Barak Obama is not a romantic hero as portrayed by Olberman , MNSBC and Fox News. Nor, is Ferraro a racist. Nor, are other Democrats who question the well crafted Obama persona.

Barack Obama has been listening to the message of Rev. Wright for 20 years. Does anyone really believe that he didn't hear the racist, anti-American tirades of the person who married him and baptized his children? It is easy to call Ferraro's comments racist when you are like Keith Olbermann and want to preserve the illusion of Obama as being the new John Kennedy or even more disturbing, the new Rev. Martin L. King, Jr. Just because Oprah said it, doesn't make it so. Just because Keith Olbermann said it, doesn't make it so.

Why have so many Americans abdicated their ability to think and evaluate the facts to a television celebrity?

Let's get back to the important issues. This country is heading for a DEPRESSION and it is taking the global economy with it. Low income, middle income, the disabled, the elderly and children are going to be the hardest hit. We need to be looking at who has the best plan to slow the run-away train we are on and prevent the growing disaster we are headed towards. Freezing mortgage interest rates, cutting healthcare costs and implementing healthcare coverage for ALL Americans, bringing our troops home and putting the billions being spent on Iraq to work employing people and addressing global warming by creating alternative energy sources and high paid jobs that can't be outsourced is the answer. Only one candidate, Democratic or Republican has the experience, intellect and humanity to get the job done and that is Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: goodmanjt | March 16, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

jac13
1. Ferraro's remarks were made in an interview with a some paper called "The Daily Breeze", an LA Suburban newspaper, not the Washington Post;

2. No one would have known about the remarks, made 2 weeks before the national media got hold of it, unless one of the campaigns brought it to the attention of the national media. That campaign was Obama's not Clinton's.

3. When the remarks were related to Clinton on her campaign plane, she immediately repudiated the remarks and said that they were not hers nor reflective of her campaign.

4. Ferraro had no position in the Clinton campaign from which to stand down. She was on a fund raising committee, as a volunteer. So, Hillary couldn't dismiss or fire her since she was not a paid member of the campaign organization.

Now let's talk about Mr. Wright:

1. Obama was told a year ago to put some distance between himself of Minister Wright. Obama either neglected to do so or refused.

2. Obama should have known the reason for the need to distance himself from his Pastor, and probably did know the reason for the need for distancing.

3. Obama retained Wright as the chairman of his committee to organize Black churches. Wright was in this position up until ABC News aired the program containing the incidiary remarks of Rev. Wright.

4. How can we say that Obama acted with a great deal of alacrity in response to this situation?

And, as a Catholic person myself, I greatly resent the proposition put forth that Catholic priests have been outted as Pedophiles and Catholic candidates have not been called to account in the same way that Obama has been called to account for Rev. Wright.

There is a flaw in this logic.

Catholic priests who have practiced pedophelia in Catholic churches have not done so from the Catholic pulpit or on the altar. Its been done in the dark, hidden from the congregations. The Church has been called to account for leaving such ministers to prey on the children in our churches and rightly so. Its an abomination on the Catholic Church that this condition has existed among our clergy.

Wright practices his hatred not in the dark, or away from his parishioners, but from the pulpit, apparently with the video cameras whirring and recording every blessed word with copies made for sale to support the ministry.

This makes a difference.

If Catholics attending Mass on Sunday were to keep a priest who preached pedophelia from the altar as being "within the book", what a strange bunch of Catholics that would be. But all would be held accountable as condoning the conduct of their priest and agreeing with him.

In Obama's Church of What's Happening Now, Obama should be held to account to the same standard by which others would be held if under similar circumstances.

And if the media is not willing to hold all candidates accountable to the same set of standards, then the media should not be in the business of holding any candidate to any standard.

Leave it up to the voters and get the hell out of the way.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 16, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

It is amazing to me the way Obama supporters see this man.

I watched him on both interviews. He was tedious in his effort to carefully word his answers. He kept leaning further and further to the right the more he searched for words trying to satisfy one side of the issue and still appease the other. He was blinking like crazy.

Another issue is after the Wright videos became available, he finally answers questions about his earmarks, admits the information he gave about Rezko donations was incorrect and then as he always does, he practiced the Mis-Direction that works so well with his followers, he asked for Hillary's information.

Not one of his followers seemed to notice that he only gave the information because at this point he has no choice, and instead followed the direction he pointed them in and looked toward Hillary.

He was asked all day on Friday about the issues and His campaign said no comment, when they realized it was going to be covered on the nightly shows anyway, he decided that he could work his mis-direction much better in person and obviously from the posts of his supporters, he was right.

He is the most dishonest person I have seen in politics in a long time, and he pretends he is squeaky clean, above the fray, a new kind of politician, with good judgement. But then he also says, He made a boneheaded mistake, He didn't have all of the information, It just came to his attention and the best yet. I listened to this man for 20 years but didn't really hear him.
I cannont believe anyone would vote for this man.

Posted by: chersplace | March 16, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Did anybody watch the Major Garrett interview with Obama on Fox? Funny thing: he asked the EXACT SAME questions Keith Olbermann asked Obama on Countdown (albeit more rudely and less respectfully, in the Fox style). And whadyaknow? Obama gave the same answers!!

There's no getting around it: Hillary's response to Ferraro's stupid remarks was slow, tentative and tepid. Watching her, you got the impression that she was reluctant to say anything. She didn't ask Ferraro to step down; Ferraro left on her own.

By contrast, Obama's response to the Wright controversy was prompt, firm, and unequivocal. He also refused to condemn the individual at the same time as he condemned his comments; IMO that took a lot of courage.

The attempt to tie Obama to Wright's outrageous statements is just the latest tool chosen by the Obama-haters to try to bring him down. It's just like the Rezko thing: no quid-pro-quo has ever been alleged between Obama and Rezko, but that doesn't stop the haters from bringing up that tired old crap day after day after day. The theory is to throw as much stuff as you can against the wall in hopes that something will stick.

In the meantime, Clinton bluffed her way past Texas and Ohio without releasing the tax returns, when the information in them could have made a significant difference in one of those states (she only won the popular vote in TX by 100,000). Now she says that she'll release them on April 15 (inexplicably, since they're LAST YEAR'S RETURNS) a week before the Pennsylvania primary, where she's up by double digits. In the meantime, the MSM go through the motions of asking her and her surrogates about the returns, and the library donors, and the WH health-care policy records that Bill's lawyers are delaying release of, but they always let them off the hook without providing a good explanation for their not being released. So she gets to tout her WH experience without producing the records that could help the voters decide if there's any substance to it. And people say the MSM is coddling OBAMA?

Posted by: jac13 | March 16, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

DrSubtle,
Your story proves your point. The one about McCain having spent MLK Day in 2007 in Montgomery at the swearing in ceremony of Gov. Riley and then attending some reception at a Mason's meeting where no Blacks are members.

That earned McCain a headline that implies a coddling of an elected official that is a member of a White's Only Club.

What if McCain were a member of a White Supremecy Organization or if McCain'w preacher taught from the pulpit the the Bible ordains the slavery of Black people.

McCain would have to withdraw from the campaign as such ideas are so far out of the mainstream of America that no one from that mind view or perspective could aspire to be President of us all.

But, Obama goes to a church where Wright teaches his gospel of hate, and we all are supposed to say its Okay? Why, because Obama is African-American and its part of the African American experience to be able to denounce white people in church and to ventilate hatred in church?

That is a double standard isn't it? It is discrimination without a rational relation to anything that would justify it. And its an advantage that Obama has that he would not otherwise have if he were White.

All that I am saying, whether others here hae this point of view or not is that there should be no double standards, not one for Clinton and one for Obama; not one for white candidates and one for Black candidates.

Once a candidate is elected, whether Democrat or Republican, man or woman, black or white, he or she is the president. To those who may be our friends or foes around the world, they will not see gender or race or party, but they President of the United States. Period.

All candidates should pass the same test. If we are going to grill Clinton over a statement made by Ferraro, then the same grill should apply to Obama for statements made by his proponents and supporters.

There are no free rides for Presidents. There should be no free rides for Presidential Candidates.

It is enough that we have a nominating system that awards a candidates proportionately so that winning a state is not such a significant event. You can run close and still win. Look at Texas, Clinton can win the popular vote and Obama get more delegates. That is not Obama's fault, it is the system and the rules that allow for this outcome.

For the media to apply double standards, on top of this, well its amazing that Clinton is still in it and only a handfull of delegates behind.

It will be difficult to get a nominee out of this process this year because the process is not geared to producing a nominee. It is geared toward insuring that every candidate is equitably represented according to the votes he or she won. It is the Jesse Jackson legacy to the Party that these rules were adopted in 1988.

By definition, the voters in the Primaries and caucases will not select the nominee. Neither can win enough delegates. The writer here who said she was the object of pressure and intimidation from MoveOn is symptomatic of the sickness in the system.

Since when, in America are individual voters made subject to intimidation. Even on this website, I have been called upon to retract something I wrote. Imagine, a blogger being told to retract a comment as damaging their candidate.

It doesn't sound very liberal to me that freedom of speech works only for those who should be free to speak and those who do not share the political point of view are not free to speak at all, unless its to say "Amen" or "Ditto".

Viva Fidel!!

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 16, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

you are absolutely right dr. no one counts in the democratic party or moveon who is over 30 years old and doesn't fall in line. Congratulation, lets see how you and the Obama supporters do in Nov having totally alienated 1/2 of the party.

Posted by: leichtman | March 16, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

chersplace I now listen to Potus every day in the office having turned off Schultz and Rhodes folks I used to really love and respect who have become nothing more than an extension of the obama campaign. I politely emailed Mr. Schultz and asked him to stop his tirades with nasty demeaning comments about Hillary but he proudly refused. Rhodes is probably more even handed, but I now only listen to what is left of fair reporting and thought that Brownstein and Potus might be the last remaining balanced reporters. This is the first time in my 35 years in politics that I can say that I am totally fed up and may just choose to work on local races which is the message I am getting from the dnc and nancy pelosi and talk radio.

Posted by: leichtman | March 16, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

@chersplace and leichtman, Randi Rhodes is a great supporter of Obama:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4r2cc

You may want to stop listening to her show now.:) There are hundreds of thousands of young people donating to Moveon.Org because of their support for Obama. Your threats of withholding donations probably won't register much.:)

Posted by: DrSubtle | March 16, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

JD wrote, "(Coaching moment for all you Fixers: Note the changing of the subject when the writer is clearly defeated...)"

Only for a self-deluded person, there are victories and defeats here. The topic is judgement. I wasn't changing that topic. By drilling the Pastor issue like woodpeckers you and others have exhausted that issue.

Here's another great example of McCain judgement: his cruel and totally tasteless joke about Chelea Clinton

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/06/25newsb.html

And this again was not said by McCain's pastor or his great uncle but by McCain himself. What a hypocrite!

Posted by: DrSubtle | March 16, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

leichtman

Thank you for the info. I am going to cancel my membership. I had already sent them an email telling them how I felt about them asking me to donate to support Obama and telling them that I was supporting Clinton, but I never got a reply although I did still get requests for donations.

You mentioned Randi Rhodes before, do you know if she has addressed the issue of Reverend Wright? I know the she is supporting Obama.

Posted by: chersplace | March 16, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

dr. the conversation is about Senator Obama's ties to Pastor Wright not the confederate flag. We agree that Sen McCain is a war mongering hypocrite but that has nothing to do with how Senator Obama took years to say something to repudiate statement that I believe reasonable American would consider unacceptable and then only after the comments spread on YouTube, not his finest moment by sure.

Posted by: leichtman | March 16, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

chersplace: I received repeated emails from moveon to sign their stupid petitions insisting that Hillary step down, and then the daily calls came from their angry members inisting that I get in line with their selection. I told them to either stop or remove my name. They refused then had the audacity to ask for monet to start running Obama commercials and I said not with a dime of my money. Again I was a charter moveon member, have given generously to them and made thousands of virtual calls on their behalf in 2004. I don' take lightly to threats or intimidation which I felt from moveon and DFA. I have had it with these strong armed tactics which refuses to hear descent or differing opinions from its members. If the left is determined to control the party which I gathered from the dailykos convention comments last summer, they will destroy the party and turn it into another 1972 debacle which I am earliy starting to sense.

Posted by: leichtman | March 16, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

JD wrote, "As for innocent without being proven guilty; um, those quotes were from video that the Rev himself put on his own website."

Like I said the Reverened is IRRELEVANT. The innocence I was referring to was about Obama. By the way, didn't McCain himself (and mind you not McCain's pastor) endorse the Confederate flag? Also do you know how McCain spent MLK day last year?
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Sen._McCain_once_against_King_holiday_0115.html

Talk about judgement. I don't call McCain a racist or call his judgement into question because of these incidents and associations. McCain's worst problem is Iraq. And there his sin is not by association or by appearance. It is a FACT.

If anyone here thinks the Confederate Flag is less offensive than Pastor's Wright's comments, we might as well stop talking.

Posted by: DrSubtle | March 16, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

I may agree with you that he showed lack of judgement but that lack of judgement, my friend, is NOTHING when compared to the lack of judgement our current President and McCain showed in getting us into the war that will cost one TRILLION dollars and probably 5000-10000 American lives....

Posted by: DrSubtle | March 16, 2008 08:30 PM

(Coaching moment for all you Fixers: Note the changing of the subject when the writer is clearly defeated...)

Posted by: JD | March 16, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

" it's entirely reasonable to judge the character of a man based on who he has chosen to be his spiritual leader for the last 20 years."

Exactly right, JD. As one of my old mentors, a southern gentleman and retired military officer, used to counsel me...

"You are known by the company you keep".

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 16, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Obamers here who are saying so what if Southerners or midwestern rural voters can't digest Rev. Wright's commentaries on life in America.

So What??

As I recall the Obama rationale for the nomination, he said that instead of playing for the big traditional Democratic states, he would be able to bring traditionally Republican states into the Democratic column. Those States in the South and Midwest like say Mississippi, Alabama Kansas and North Dakota that Obama has won in caucus votes or with overwhelming African-American support, Obama says he can bring Democratic in the Fall.

Well, to do that you have to get the white people who live and vote there to vote for Obama.

So, yes it does matter if your 20 year preacher who is your spiritual mentor climbs into his pulpit to go on about hating America and calling God's damnation down upon it.

As a Southerner and a Democrat, I can tell you that patriotism is a must and a given if you want to be elected. Southern Democrats are patriotic folks, we have invocations before meetings and a Pledge of Allegiance after we're done.

As a Southern Democrat, I am offended with this Wright guy and what he has to say. Think of Southern independents and Southern Republicans?? They not only will vote against Obama, they will campaign against him.

The one big thing Obama had going for him here was that if Hillary were at the top of our Democratic Ticket, she would be responsible for a big Republican turn out, one big enough to sink the ticket. For this reason, many State party people would rather have Obama on top of the ticket to insure an big African-American turn out in the Fall.

The Wright Affair has erased this argument from the Obama Campaign. Now the Republicans will come out in even bigger droves to keep the White House safe from an African separatist, endorsed by Louis Farakhan no less.

Maybe in California or New York it will not matter much, but Hillary can win there as her husband did twice in the real thing, a Presidential election, in 1992 and 1996.

Hillary will not win much down South, and now Obama won't either. This episode has taken away his electoral rational and with it his argument for being more electable than Hillary in the Fall Campaign.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 16, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman wrote, "The Obama campaign wants neither and will pull out every stop to makesure that neither happens b/c of couse they don't play the politics as usual game."

That is absolutely and categorically UNTRUE. Obama has said repeatedly that a solution acceptable to DNC is acceptable to him.

Btw, I didn't say all of Hillary's supporters are racist. They are NOT but some are (and am not sure if I'd include Ferraro in it because she could be just plain ignorant). I lived in Oklahoma for a long time (probably even more insular than Texas) and I know most people are basically good and only turn into bigots when incited by politicians.

___________________________________________

proudtobeGOP wrote, "I think he displayed a remarkable lack of judgement in elevating Pastor Wright to an important committee in his presidential campaign."

I may agree with you that he showed lack of judgement but that lack of judgement, my friend, is NOTHING when compared to the lack of judgement our current President and McCain showed in getting us into the war that will cost one TRILLION dollars and probably 5000-10000 American lives. To worry about whose pastor said what at a time when economy is going down the drain and the world hates us (thanks to GOP policies) is disingenous. It's like me worrying about my chipped nail when my arteries are clogged with cholesterol.

Posted by: DrSubtle | March 16, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman wrote, "The Obama campaign wants neither and will pull out every stop to makesure that neither happens b/c of couse they don't play the politics as usual game."

That is absolutely and categorically UNTRUE. Obama has said repeatedly that a solution acceptable to DNC is acceptable to him.

Btw, I didn't say all of Hillary's supporters are racist. They are NOT but some are (and am not sure if I'd include Ferraro in it because she could be just plain ignorant). I lived in Oklahoma for a long time (probably even more insular than Texas) and I know most people are basically good and only turn into bigots when incited by politicians.

___________________________________________

proudtobeGOP wrote, "I think he displayed a remarkable lack of judgement in elevating Pastor Wright to an important committee in his presidential campaign."

I may agree with you that he showed lack of judgement but that lack of judgement, my friend, is NOTHING when compared to the lack of judgement our current President and McCain showed in getting us into the war that will cost one TRILLION dollars and probably 5000-10000 American lives. To worry about whose pastor said what at a time when economy is going down the drain and the world hates us (thanks to GOP policies) is disingenous. It's like me worrying about my chipped nail when my arteries are clogged with cholesterol.

Posted by: DrSubtle | March 16, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

leichtman

I agree I also have been a move on member and was insulted that they assumed I would support Obama. I didn't think about canceling my membership but that is a good idea. I don't recall recieving anything from them asking which candidate I wanted to support.

I have always liked Randi Rhodes but have not had the opportunity to listen to her for awhile. What is her take on the Reverend Wright?

I am shocked that so many people who scream racism at statements like those made by President Bill Clinton or Geraldine Ferraro then turn around and try to condone the comments of Reverend Wright.

Even if you just look at the video of him talking about Monica Lewinski and gyrating in a sexual manner on the pulpit, the man is disgusting. Then when you add the Racism and Anti-American comments I cannot imagine sitting in that church for one day much less 20 years.

Posted by: chersplace | March 16, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman wrote, "The Obama campaign wants neither and will pull out every stop to makesure that neither happens b/c of couse they don't play the politics as usual game."

That is absolutely and categorically UNTRUE. Obama has said repeatedly that a solution acceptable to DNC is acceptable to him.

Btw, I didn't say all of Hillary's supporters are racist. They are NOT but some are (and am not sure if I'd include Ferraro in it because she could be just plain ignorant). I lived in Oklahoma for a long time (probably even more insular than Texas) and I know most people are basically good and only turn into bigots when incited by politicians.

___________________________________________

proudtobeGOP wrote, "I think he displayed a remarkable lack of judgement in elevating Pastor Wright to an important committee in his presidential campaign."

I may agree with you that he showed lack of judgement but that lack of judgement, my friend, is NOTHING when compared to the lack of judgement our current President and McCain showed in getting us into the war that will cost one TRILLION dollars and probably 5000-10000 American lives. To worry about whose pastor said what at a time when economy is going down the drain and the world hates us (thanks to GOP policies) is disingenous. It's like me worrying about my chipped nail when my arteries are clogged with cholesterol.

Posted by: DrSubtle | March 16, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

I formerly was a big KO supporter, never missed his show. I stopped watching him when he joined Matthews as an Obama worshiper, a month or so ago. I am a 68 year old yellow dog democrat, a strong Hillary backer, and I know bias when I see it. I think he made a big mistake, along with Josh Marshall and some others, by tuning their shows and blogs into a branch of a primary campaign. In any case, my blood pressure is much better since I stopped watching MSNBC and took TPM off my favorites list. The list is getting pretty short, but I feel much better. There are a few places around where you can discuss without being cussed. One funny thing, though. For a while the Obots thought Politico was a spot for true believers. Now they are shilling for McCain and not just against Hillary and you should hear the Obots piss and moan.

Posted by: rpcantrell | March 16, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

I formerly was a big KO supporter, never missed his show. I stopped watching him when he joined Matthews as an Obama worshiper, a month or so ago. I am a 68 year old yellow dog democrat, a strong Hillary backer, and I know bias when I see it. I think he made a big mistake, along with Josh Marshall and some others, by tuning their shows and blogs into a branch of a primary campaign. In any case, my blood pressure is much better since I stopped watching MSNBC and took TPM off my favorites list. The list is getting pretty short, but I feel much better. There are a few places around where you can discuss without being cussed. One funny thing, though. For a while the Obots thought Politico was a spot for true believers. Now they are shilling for McCain and not just against Hillary and you should hear the Obots piss and moan.

Posted by: rpcantrell | March 16, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Dr Subtle, unfortunately Proud beat me to the reply I was going to give you.

Yes, this is a free country, people can say what they want (well, within reason). However, it's entirely reasonable to judge the character of a man based on who he has chosen to be his spiritual leader for the last 20 years.

I'm sure if McCain's preacher was a black-hating, America-hating nazi, the press would be all over him to withdraw (or at least condemn the guy). However, because Obama and the rev are black, they largely get a pass.

As for innocent without being proven guilty; um, those quotes were from video that the Rev himself put on his own website. Full context was shown. He's published his 'facts' (lies) that leave no doubt where he stands. Finally, your standard applies to a court of law, not to Americans making judgements about someone's character.

Posted by: JD | March 16, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

DrSubtle, If Obama's campaign platform is all about transcending race, being post-racial as a society and deploring divisiveness in all aspects, political and social, then how he answers for a decades-long membership in a church where divisive, hateful rhetoric is not only accepted, but appluaded, even going so far as to compare Obama to Jesus and use the n-word at a Christmas service, goes to the heart of his stated core philosophy of a 'new kind of politics'.

I think he displayed a remarkable lack of judgement in elevating Pastor Wright to an important committee in his presidential campaign, and only thought better of it after he got YouTubed. It was Obama's maccacca moment.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 16, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

you say you know the south better than me a native Texan and that voters will simply ignore those inflamatory speeches of Wright, that is naive on your part. No one blames Sen Obama for those speeches, we only question his judgment in selecting Pastor Wright as his campaign's official spiritual advisor and then ignoring the pastor's April 2007 warnings to Sen Obama. Its about judgment but apparently that doesn't bother you so I won't waste my time trying to explain to you why its a question of judgment.

And their you go again with the race card. Hillary, Bill, Rendell, Geraldine are all racist, and perhaps Sheila Jackson Lee and Maxine Waters should be thrown in the mix and b/c they support Hillary. And if it makes you feel better I will type Senator Obama who I respect just don't want as my President. Now apparently anyone who types the initials of Senator Obama rather than Sen Obama is a racist perhaps LBJ will be next on your list.

"As an Obama supporter, I don't mind MI or FL delegates being seated as long as their elections are legal. Right now those delegates are illegal. A re-vote agreeable to both camps is one solution."

The Obama campaign wants neither and will pull out every stop to makesure that neither happens b/c of couse they don't play the politics as usual game.

Posted by: leichtman | March 16, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

ProudbeGOP says, "he never heard one thing that was divisive or hateful at that church in 20 years' time."

Obama probably didn't. I live in a country where someone is innocent until proven guilty. For you to assume that the pastor has Obama's blessings is jumping to conclusions at its worst.

As for the pastor, I also believe in a country where Free Speech is allowed. As a descendent of slaves, the minister has every right to say what he believes it to be true. As a descendent of slaveholders I may disagree with him but that doesn't make him automatically wrong. Nor does it make everyone who attends his church disqualified from running for President.

Posted by: DrSubtle | March 16, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Lichtman wrote, "I will let the local party know that the good dr as a spokesperson for the Obama campaign says, who cares get a backbone, the south is IRRELEVANT fall in line. Thanks."

Lichtman, I'm not a spokesman for anybody and please don't misquote me. I never said the south is irrelevant. I said Rev. Wright is IRRELEVANT. When you say northern rural and southerners won't be able to tell the difference between Obama and his pastor, you are underestimating America. We are a smarter country than you give us credit for. Yes, we do have some bigots but they are by no means restricted to the rural areas or to the South (as some of the northern white supporters of Hillary have proven).

Trying to attack our front-runner now is suicidal for the party. If Hillary becomes the nominee through a majority of elected delegates, I will vote for her. If she gets in any other way, you can expect millions of people to abstain from voting in the general election.

Like I said, the Republicans have probably already won the general election. We Democrats have become very good at forming a circular firing squad.

Posted by: DrSubtle | March 16, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

DrSubtle says " what our ministers or priests say is IRRELEVANT."

The question is, what did Obama like about this man, his mentor for the part 20 years, that he kept going back to Trinity United all those years to hear that and stand in the pews with the others clapping and amen-ing at the hateful racist divisive rhetoric coming from the pulpit.

Obama either became a member at this important black church in South Chicago to help himself move up politically in the community, and then kicked his pastor to the curb when it was no longer conveneint, in which case we don't really know the real Obama.

Or, he never heard one thing that was divisive or hateful at that church in 20 years' time, and had no knowledge of all the DVDs for sale to the public with Wright's sermons on them, and so he really does transcend race and deplore divisive rhetoric like he said.

Or he says one thing and means another.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 16, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Lichtman wrote, "If Clinton's supporters believe that B.O. is gaming the system... and refuses to treat either the voters of Fla or Michigan fairly and manipulating the eventual outcome, the dnc should expect a massive Denver walk out."

Why can't Hillary supporters see the flip side of everything they say? Like Ferraro not realizing that if Obama was where he was because he was black, Hillary is where she is because she is white and a woman. I disagree with both statements but if you agree with one statement you have to agree with the flipside.

Same thing is true with threats of walkouts. Obama's delegates will be even more justified in staging a walkout because their candidate is actually LEADING! As an Obama supporter, I don't mind MI or FL delegates being seated as long as their elections are legal. Right now those delegates are illegal. A re-vote agreeable to both camps is one solution. The other solution is to throw both FL and MI out because they didn't follow the rules and giving them a re-vote is letting me re-drive without a ticket after a cop caught me for speeding.

I'd agree to a re-vote only after an apology from the governors of MI and FL for causing this whole mess.

Lichtman, again, please avoid calling Obama "B.O." It should be beneath you if you call yourself a democrat and non-racist. I hope you won't use it again.

Posted by: DrSubtle | March 16, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Dr. you just proved my point. Neither you nor your candidate care the least about the south or moderates in the party. In your book we can all go to hell if we don't line up behind your candidate. I will save your comment and take it into the voting booth in Nov if Sen Obama should become the nominee.Go ahead and destroy the party with those kinds of outrageous comments. You will wake up on Wed after the election and find that the George McGovern campaign who similarly locked out moderates and southerners will look pretty succesul. I know b/c I worked in the '72 state campaign policy office and heard those eaxct same types of comments.
Incidnetally we have a senate campaign here in Texas that may constitute the 60th Senate Dem and an opportunity to actually take back some of Harris Cty Benches which are currently 100% Republican.

I will let the local party know that the good dr as a spokesperson for the Obama campaign says, who cares get a backbone, the south is IRRELEVANT fall in line. Thanks.

I doubt mark in Austin an Obama supporter would agree with you but apparently this is your campaign's latest message and what we now have to deal with from the Obama side.

Lichtman wrote, "Could an Obama supporter please tell me in detail how they feel the the Wright statement will play in rural communities and the south"? Who cares? We need to have a backbone and say it's IRRELEVANT. And that is the truth.

Posted by: leichtman | March 16, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

drindl writes "Rush Limbaugh was a disc jockey -- how is he qualified to be a commentator?"

And Krazy Keith was a sports jockey on ESPN, and certainly has no more qualifications other than a big mouth (like Rush) and some better ratings thanks to GWB to line his pockets with.

He offers up his opinion as if it were fact on a nightly basis, and you liberal pukes who love him are just as STOOPID as the dittoheads.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 16, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

"Ed Shultz (who I both respect?) " not me they have lost me as a listener as well. Even Ed's own wife a Clinton supporter believes he has gone way over the edge in attacking Hillary to boost Ed's own ratings with conservative. I find that to be dispicable from a self described progressive talks show host. If bashing Hillary is now the norm of the dnc, they will not only lose the soul of the party they will lose millions of members and become nothing more than a strident left wing party they have spent 36 years to disavow. If the party does not show themselves to be even handed with their lifelong supporters they will self destruct. To date I have seen nothing that even resembles even handedeness with Hillary's supporters. Dean et al somehow think that they can ram this nomination down our throats and then expect foregiveness in Denver. If Clinton's supporters believe that B.O. is gaming the system(and most of them believe exactly that) and refuses to treat either the voters of Fla or Michigan fairly and manipulating the eventual outcome, the dnc should expect a massive Denver walk out. From what I am seeing by the B.O. campaign to deliberately block any chance of a revote or seating Fla and Michigan voters according to their vote, the dnc can expect a signiciant blow back in Denver.

Posted by: leichtman | March 16, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

JD wrote, "Dr Subtle, help us out here....
Are you actually saying that the comments by this clown are defensible? Yes or no, please."

I could care less about whether this pastor is defensible or not. There are thousands of ministers in this country saying all kinds of outrageous things (probably some fundamentalist ones still believe AIDS is a punishment of gays by God, not realizing lesbians would then be dear to God because they are the least susceptible). All I'm saying what our ministers or priests say is IRRELEVANT.

Lichtman wrote, "Could an Obama supporter please tell me in detail how they feel the the Wright statement will play in rural communities and the south"? Who cares? We need to have a backbone and say it's IRRELEVANT. And that is the truth.

Hillary is losing partly because of these quasi-Republican tactics. Instead of telling the voters why they should vote for Hillary, we hear a ton of uncouth allegations against her opponent. It's like they are hoping just one of these allegations will stick. Remind you of what the Reps did to Bill and Hillary? Hillary is doing exactly the same thing to Obama.

If you say you're doing this because you want to save Obama from facing similar attacks in the future from Republicans, give me a break. No matter who the Dem candidate is (Hillary more so), the Reps will come after them will guns blazing, instead of attacking our current front-runner. With "friends" like these who needs enemies?

Now let me repeat my questions for Hillary fans:

1) Where are the tax returns?

2) Where are the details of the earmarks?

3) Where are the White House papers?

If you can't answer any of those, at least please spare us another dirty attack on what Obama's pastor said or hi great uncle on his mother's side did fifty years ago in an alley way.

Your shell game is wearing then, Hillary!

Posted by: DrSubtle | March 16, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

If KO is sexist will someone explain Rachel Maddow doing his show... is she then a sexist appeaser? If you ever heard her comments on MSNBC and on Air America, even the dull would see she eats up sexists for breakfast.

Is Randi Rhodes as well, a former Air Force awarded vet and the only damn liberal on the radio long before Stephanie Miller and Ed Shultz (who I both respect?) She's not been too pleased with the tenor of the campaign. Is she sexist because she was disappointed in HRC and Ferraro for this moment?

Want to know something, dems will lose this one if we don't get smart and continue to play from the Rove cookbook of horrors of divide and conquer and eat our own.

And wow, we cheer KO when he was taking it to Bush but now he's persona non grata and sexist (please continue to use that term, it sounds more hilarious the more it's repeated.)

We are adults and are not reactionary authoritarians like the other side... because an ally may criticize our own, we don't throw him or her under the bus. We are mature enough to take criticism and not call them a B*ST*RD or a Witch.

Posted by: RppPolyp | March 16, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Could an Obama supporter please tell me in detail how they feel the the Wright statement will play in rural communities and the south during a general election? Go ahead call every southerner a racist if that makes your point but is the B.O. now willing to concede that if they are the nominee, they are now willing to virtually write off every southern state with the Wright story. As a lifelong southerner I can tell you that pastor Wright's comments will be poorly received with rural and southern voters(and I challenge any Obama supporter to show otherwise) and thus any hope that places like Texas have to start turning things around in local races could now be very well jepordized with an Obama nomination.

And Randi Rhodes is now the arbitror of good politics or good taste? I personally like Ms. Rhodes but there are times that even she doesn't take herself seriously so why should we suddenly do so? The left's obsessive dislike of the Clintons has been over the top for years but as a charter member of moveon and DFA I refuse to take my marching orders from them and have already turned in my membership after their demands that as a member I was somehow obligated to support Sen obama. I found their attitude rather condesending and divisive of their deverse membership, curious if others have felt that way? If the left wants to push away its more moderate members, they will do so at their own peril. Since when has the Dem party become a monolithic party and demanded absolute adherence to their philosophy. If we can not be a big tent and embrace liberal, moderate and conservatives with shared values the party will lose its sole and become no different than Republicans who demand the same loyalty oath. Its one thing to say we should all get behind our candidates once we actually have a nominee, its another to continue yelling at those who support the Clinton campaign and trying to bully us into following suit. Now B.O. has shown he struggles in blue collar states and perhaps has alienated most southereners. In 1988 we were told that Michael Dukakas was a sure thing and it was too late to show buyer's remorse. Hopefully with calmer heads we won't be making that same mistake. Personally I would take Minister Stricklands' and Wallace's spiritual guidance over Pastor Wright's.

Posted by: leichtman | March 16, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

I didn't even see it, I quit waching him about a month ago when he went off on a "Clinton" hating spewing bit. I quit watcing Chris also, can't stand either one of them.

If Obama never heard these comments, he was sleeping in church, or is deaf.

My biggest fear is that he really believes this hate spewing crap. Is this why is wife is "finaly pround of America?"

As for his pastor, I would like to ask him, how do you think that only black American's feel pain, or have tough times?
What about the mentally handicapped, mentally ill, seniors in nursing homes forgotten by children, the abused children, the abused wived and husbands, children going to bed hungry, parents wondering where to get their childrens next meal from, the homeless, people in wheelchairs, parents holding dying children because they have no health insurance, the blind, the deaf, peolpe losing their homes facing living on the streets, people that are so poor they have to chose between heat, food and rent. Someone needs to tell that preacher, this happens to everyone, no matter their race, no matter their skin color.

From his pulpit he should have been teaching love, kindness, exceptness, and forgiveness. After all aren't we all God's children.

Lets face it, if it was anyone else's pastor they would have had to drop out of the race, but Obama would just cry "racism" like his camp has this whole election cycle. (I am starting to think he does believe it)

K.O. should have been just as tough on Obama as he was on Clinton. He wasn't because he can't, he is a sexist pig, so is all of msnbc, that is why I quit watching.

I was floored to see they were going to let him be on twice a night.

Posted by: rose48809 | March 16, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Olbermann was great when he attacked the current administration with his infrequent 'special comments'. Now he seems to feel they are his trademark and he is outraged nearly as often as Limbaugh. Couple that with his hyper-critical dissection of every thing the Clinton campaign does, with the assigning of the worst possible interpretation of Clinton's actions, and you get just another high paid entertainer who stokes controversy to get ratings.

Posted by: jboyno | March 16, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

~

I am boycotting everything GE as a result of MSNBC's incredible slanted and sexist reporting.

The Shorenstein Center for Media Research found that, of all networks, NBC was the most biased.

No GE appliances. No NBC shows.

Nothing. Jeffrey Immelt should wake up to what is going on over there.

It is preposterous.

~

Posted by: DickeyFuller | March 16, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Dr Subtle, help us out here.

Are you actually saying that the comments by this clown are defensible? Yes or no, please.

And if so, are you saying that Obama's 20 year relationship with him and his church of hate is also defensible?

Posted by: JD | March 16, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

I'd say pox on both your houses, either side mewls about a bad hit in the press but had no problem when the media and even this publication did their damndest to keep Dennis Kucinich marginalized, or worse, out of the picture (literally in some cases.) As far as I'm concerned there was the guy who got it right from the beginning (NAFTA, Patriot Act, War, healthcare, even so far back as fighting against the banks in the 70's when they bankrupted Cleveland.) I call experience AND getting it right from the beginning a pretty good litmus test. Oh well.

kemurph wins with his or her comments though. This, "attack someone in the sphere of candidate A or B equals the same as attacking candidate's A or B's right to be a nominee or president" is FoxNews childishness. Then follows the predictable pathetic circling of wagons when someone's sacred cow is criticized saying the opponent's tangental supporter's words are worse than their candidate's tangental supporter's words.

Want to lose the White House kids... well here's how to do it (& why KO was right.)

I am amused by how similiar some of HRC's camp words in relation to Wright are parroting Sean Hannity and others. Just listen to yourselves and then Faux and the rest of FoxNoise... you might not dig the similarity.

Back to it: I'd like to dgest candidates by their OWN words... or do those not matter? People lose me when putting out a fearmonger ad like the 3:00am one - something right out of the "oh sh*t, a terrorist lives under your bed" book of the republic party.

As for KO, look alan or everyone else with the "he's a sexist" meme should damn well say where exactly he spouted sexism because if it's just that he criticized HRC's tactics in this case, yelling sexism is pretty pathetic same as yelling racism for criticizing Obama.

I see a lot of throwing our very few and articulate liberal allies in the media overboard (Maddow, now Maddow's the enemy of liberals? Sheesh)just because they call out when someone they'd normally support does something stupid.

With that said, I'll be voting for either Dem nom in the election (because at least I bloody well remember what we DONT want in the White House for another 4 years) To those saying I'll not vote for one or the other if they win the Dem nomination, why do I think you weren't planning on voting for either HRC or Obama anyway?

Want to get worked up about something kids? Rather than slaughtering surrogates like pawns, how about paying attention about the integrity of the vote and how our Justice Department will be handling any funny business come November.

Posted by: RppPolyp | March 16, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

JD wrote, "If the tables were turned and a Republican had a similar relationship with an equally racist white preacher, the media would be all over it. Instead, Obama is allowed to get away with this."

You're absolutely wrong on this. Pastor John Hagee is no less bigoted toward Catholics and his endorsement of McCain has been barely mentioned in the media:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_catholics

Republicans or Democrats, we all have pastors that we don't always see eye-to-eye with. Since when is a person electable because he/she chose a great minister?

The Hillary shell game is at play again. Who cares about the pastor? Where are the tax returns? Where is the list of earmarks? Where are the Clinton presidency papers? Instead of answering these questions, you give us the recycled news from an old fiery African American minister. America is not stupid to buy this shell game. At least the majority of us are not, as our votes to date show.

Posted by: DrSubtle | March 16, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Olberman has become a caricature of himself. An angry lefty who only has guests that he agrees with on his show - a 60 minute echo chamber, thank for your time Mr. Dean. OMG - you can't make it up. He has obviousy been in the tank for Obama for some time - it shows, no problem...just admit it. I do have a problem with Mathews and Olberman anchoring this season's primary results on MSNBC. Can't mix the biased opinion guys with the straight news teams. Huntley and Brinkley are doing back flips!!!

Is is refreshing to see Keith bash the left from time to time. His W rants have gotten really OLD!!

pb

Posted by: whypromote | March 16, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Bravo Obermann. About time someone on the tv told it like it is. Hillary is willing to destroy the party to massage her bloated ego. What a bruja.

Posted by: queenskid | March 16, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

I didn't read all of these comments, because frankly, I both sides (Obama & Clinton) are going way too far, as are the righties.

However, I do need to address the comments of sexism by Olbermann and other pundits that are repudiating Clinton.

For what it's worth, Randi Rhodes, who is certainly not a man and someone I would be hard-pressed to call sexist, has torn both Ferraro and Clinton a new one over this thing. She's also approached the Rev. Wright controversy with disappointment toward Obama, but considers it far less distasteful than the tactics used by Clinton's campaign.

Posted by: cam8 | March 16, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Dr Subtle, if you are actually interested in what Hillary has done during her 35 years of public service, I suggest you check out her web site:

http://thehillaryiknow.com/

And can we please stop the "surgeon's wife isn't a surgeon" analogy? Comparing the job of a surgeon to that of the President, or a governor for that matter, is simply absurd.

And of course Ferraro's remarks have no basis in reality. Obama would have still won 92% of the black vote in Mississippi if he was white. It's just his particular message of 'hope' that is making the connection with voters.

Posted by: mburkel | March 16, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

For those that think the media picks on Hilary, then why aren't they calling her out for lying? They should!

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Hillary's+word:+It's+worth+nothing&articleId=0853268a-d982-4190-81e8-740ae942f510

From Unionleader.com:

"Hilary's word: It's worth nothing
COURTING VOTERS in Iowa and New Hampshire, last August Sen. Hillary Clinton signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. She participated in both primaries and is campaigning in Florida. Which proves, again, that Hillary Clinton is a liar.

Clinton kept her name on the Michigan ballot when others removed theirs, she campaigned this past weekend in Florida, and she is pushing to seat Michigan and Florida delegates at the Democratic National Convention. The party stripped those states of delegates as punishment for moving up their primary dates.

"I will try to persuade my delegates to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida," Clinton said last week, after the New Hampshire primaries and Iowa caucuses were safely over.

Clinton coldly and knowingly lied to New Hampshire and Iowa. Her promise was not a vague statement. It was a signed pledge with a clear and unequivocal meaning.

She signed it thinking that keeping the other candidates out of Michigan and Florida was to her advantage, but knowing she would break it if that proved beneficial later on. It did, and she did.

New Hampshire voters, you were played for suckers. "

Posted by: Katherine2 | March 16, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Dr Subtle, you almost sound like you're defending that whackjob. The things he said are so extreme and racist that the guy should be a pariah. And Obama has shown himself to be less-than-superman by not disavowing those remarks.

If the tables were turned and a Republican had a similar relationship with an equally racist white preacher, the media would be all over it. Instead, Obama is allowed to get away with this.

Part of the problem is, the 'church' the guy leads is non-denominational; all of the doctrine and direction comes from the pulpit, the cult of personality embodied by the preacher.

And Obama CHOSE this guy.

Posted by: JD | March 16, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I like the Word Suicide 3-16-08
Peter Macdonald 465 Packersfalls rd Lee NH 03824 603-659-6217 NH.veteran@yahoo.com
I first want to apologize I have been using the wrong date on my past few letters.
So many of the right people in the right gov. agencies read my letters yet they do nothing. These so called right officials are so set on believing that I am a nut and paranoid, that they ignore what I write and condemn me. I have serious disabilities that I received while serving in the U.S. Marine Corps. The NH governor and Judges have so violated the law that using the news media to strip a disabled Veteran of any public dignity, so the public has stereotyped me crazy. Yes you are probably right. I do see the world differently than others. Some thirty years after receiving a head injury in the MC, I still have no memory of my child hood. I broke my back during one Vietnam offensive and was blown off a runway and lost most of my hearing in both ears during another offensive. I learned to love the United States of America because I lived in some of the dirtiest, crude and deadliest conditions before I have any memory of seeing the U.S. I came back to the "World" (US) to a place that I do not belong. Never have I violated the law on purpose. I have volunteered every day to help others just the make the U.S. a better place. I owe this to those that never returned alive.
A criminal is someone whom violates the law with intent to harm others. Judge Peter Fauver did just that. The NH Supreme court is so biased that it refused to hear a case presented by a high school drop out. Fauver made me and attorney to represent a Madbury NH family for a zoning issue because Fauver thought it would allow him to screw this family to benefit the selectmen's criminal acts. I proved the case beyond any doubt and Fauver ignored the law to harm others. A judge is not above the opinion of the people or the law. The State and local police under the direction of the NH governor and the Sheriff's dept harass my family at work and home to cover up crimes committed by a judge. For the system to allow a U.S. congresswoman (Shea-Porter) to use her political powers to medically harm me is beyond any belief. For the Inspector General of the NH Veteran's admin in Manchester. NH to stop my VA medical for service injuries received as a U.S. Marine (two of the three Combat related) can not be tolerated. I write these letters because it is every U.S. citizen's responsibility to correct the wrongs in government. I may be crazy to put my live on the line for our country. That would make every U.S. military personal crazy also. The right people that do nothing but sit idle and allow the NH Judges and government official to harm a disabled veteran are not bad people. These right people are just believing what powerful people tell them. I tell every news paper in the U.S. to print my letter with a disclaimer and allow me to suffer the consequences. The unedited opinion of the people is the most important part of the news media's ethical responsibility. I think as a 100% disabled U.S. Marine I have earned the right to have this letter printed across the U.S. unedited. "truth is a powerful weapon"
Peter Macdonald Sgt USMC Semper

Posted by: usmcsgt | March 16, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

DrSubtle

When you have to resort to calling a comment "idiotic" my friend, its usually a sign of intellectual bankruptcy.

Your comment makes clear that you are more anti-Clinton than pro-Obama. Well guess what, there are lots more anti-Clinton folks who are Republicans than Democrat, so if I am picking a Democratic nominee, I am looking for a reason to be for someone, other than he is not Hillary Clinton.

I think simple prudence would say that we all need to see how Rev. Wright works its way through the polls before saying which of these candidates we put at the top of our ticket. We have to look at Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina. I think whoever can pull these states in should have it.

Already, the best candidate is out of the race, Joe Biden.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 16, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

BRAVO MR. O!!!!
I have no doubt that the Slave and the Suffergette, the down trodden and the abused and all the hypened Americans buried by the hundreds of thousands across this great land, are turning in their graves trying to stand up and give you a standing ovation.

Never in my 46 year old lifetime have I heard the power of the written and spoken word, concerning our Humanity, more clearly and sincerely spoken.

You, Mr. O are a credit to Humanity. If more journalist took the same responsibility of the seats they sit in and the millions of homes they come into to speak to the truth of Humanity, calling a Spade a Spade, we would indeed be further along in both the Race and Gender war that continues to tear us down as Americans. This U.S. Marine salutes you Sir. You did not speak of Black and White...You spoke of Right that make Might. You get it. You really get it! Hopefully, those who were once blind now see. YOU GO BOY! Senator Clinton...take Heed. Senator Obama...take Heed. Senator McCain...take Heed.

Posted by: emeraldfalcon | March 16, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

I think it is awful that a newspaper reporter would reccommend Special Comments by Keith Olbermann. So much for honset analysis - this is the beginning of the end!

Posted by: geriak | March 16, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

mark in austim

Thank you.
I have also forwarded the clip to Fox asking them to look into this. I assume that they have the complete video and should be able to see what is on the video at the point that it stops.

I am hoping if more people ask about it, they will actually look into it.

I appreciate your wanting to know.
I also want to know.

I really just noticed it and I wasn't even sure if the person was Obama, I just thought the person looked similar.

Posted by: chersplace | March 16, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

SNB,MA says "At least we know that his wife was paying attention.Was he not with her?"

Wow, should one respond with "yep he was with his wife but apparently Hillary didn't know where Bill was"? Nah, that would be too easy. It would be tantamount to re-making the 3 am phone call ad with a woman's hand picking up the red phone and it turns out to be not Hillary's.

As for the pastor's words, they were no worse than all the racist bigotry spewing forth from Ferraro, Bill, and Hillary herself. At least Obama said he repudiated Rev. Wright and Rev. Wright resigned from the campaign. Why can't Bill resign and disappear? Nope, then he would take many of the Hillary votes with him.

Posted by: DrSubtle | March 16, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Count me in the camp of former MSNBC viewers. Mr. Olbermann's rant broke me. Here's a link to information about a boycott of MSNBC.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/noratings?e

Posted by: PNolan | March 16, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Olbermann is a blatant Obama supporter and I am not. When (hopefully before it's too late)will the press corps examine Obama's record on Rezko and his sitting in the pew listening to the Rev.Wright for twenty years.Do you actually believe he never heard the anti-american,hatefull speech before he was forced into denial. For Obama to deny to the American people that he had no knowledge of his pastor's leanings stretches the imagination. At least we know that his wife was paying attention.Was he not with her?
SMB,MA.

Posted by: sjdbates | March 16, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

pkmc wrote, "So rather than go for someone who might be the one who can pull the sword out of the stone, let's just go for someone who knows the ropes"

With all due respect, that is an idotic comment. You are saying anyone who's voted for Obama (and I'm one of them) thinks Obama is King Arthur and that we're all deluded.

We're no more deluded than people who think Hillary knows the ropes.
35-year experience? That means everything she did after getting a law degree at 25 (she's 60 now) counts as experience where Obama's experience clock, in her mind, only starts when he became a senator. Talk about double standards. Much of her so-called experience was gained as the wife of a mediocre President. Would you accept surgery from a surgeon's husband or wife?

What Hillary supporters need to realize is that there is a tremendous anti-Hillary feeling out there among all Americans, Republicans and Democrats alike. Even those of us who initially tolerated her can't stand her now because of all her tactics in the primaries.

Even if there were no Obama, I would not vote for her. And this is true with millions of people who have voted for Obama so far. The sooner you face this truth the better.

Posted by: DrSubtle | March 16, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

pkmc says, "If Wright is right, then why should Obama repudiate him?? Isn't Obama being hypocritical???"

Don't get frustrated, mate (as your multiple question marks seem to show). It is me who's saying Rev. Wright may be right. And I repudiate this whole damn racist setup.

All of this is a distraction. Hillary is 130-150 delegates behind (depending on the source). There's no way she is going to make this up before the convention. If Hillary tries to pull something off there behind closed doors, many of us who voted for Obama will not vote for someone who the majority of the democratic voters have said no to (namely Hillary).

The Republicans are right. We Democrats probably already lost the election. We deserve to lose it because we have proven that we are no less bigoted than Republicans are.

Posted by: DrSubtle | March 16, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

You know, I am about tired, being a Democratic voter in his 50's who is not enthralled with Senator Obama that I am some sort of lingering racist.

Those of you who are under 30 years old were born in 1978 or later.

You were not in Alabama during the Freedom Rider Days; you didn't see the hose pipes being put to kids in the streets of Birmingham; you didn't hear a real African-American preacher who could speak to all America, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; you didn't experience the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights law and witness long time segregationists turn and vote for this bill because of the murders of the little girls at the 16th Street Baptist Church and the assassination of John F. Kennedy; you didn't witness the murder of Dr. King by a racist, a true one; you did not witness the murder of Robert F. Kennedy, one of the last hopes of a national politician who could bridge between white and black, rich and poor. That murder was 40 years ago, not 30. We are now trying to find a replacement for Robert Kennedy and let me tell you folks under 30, we over 30 types have been looking for longer than you have been looking.

We have seen many imitations try to fill that place of the reconciler and have had hopes in George McGovern, Gary Hart, Mike Dukakis and Jimmy Carter as well as Mondale and Clinton and Kerry.

With age comes experience and yes, experience can lead to wisdom in making this search. So when we look over your Obama, there is a lot about him that does not stack up. That is not to say that Senator Clinton stacks up either. She does not.

So rather than go for someone who might be the one who can pull the sword out of the stone, let's just go for someone who knows the ropes, not just where they are, but how to use them and who can do something about:

Crashing mortgages;
Homelessness;
The US Dollar at historic lows;
$9.225 trillion dollars of national debt of which China and Japan owns over $1.0 trillion;
Social Security for Baby Boomers;
Iraq;
Iran;
Afghanistan;
etc etc

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 16, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Great job Keith with stating the facts that has been overlooked by the socalled main stream media. Next I hope that he disects that 35 years of experience?

Edward

Posted by: tho1mas | March 16, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

MoreAndBetterPolls

You should not insult people.

I watched the video, noticed a person who looked like Barrack Obama to me, and asked a question. Does anyone else think that it is Barrack Obama?

I am glad that you were able to look at it so quickly and determine that it was a cut and splice. I assume you have the ability and technical know how to examine the video and make a final determination.

I only provided a link. I hope that someone who does have the know how either comfirms the clip is valid or it isn't.

Don't be so quick to throw insults just because someone asks a question.
Questions are how we get answers.

I am finding though that most people who support Obama really don't want any answers if they tarnish the Obama Image.

Posted by: chersplace | March 16, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

I applaud Keith's comments. During this campaign, many progressives have had their eyes open to the amount of racism that continues to linger across our country...particularly amongst the over 30 crowd. It is a shame that a major candidate has played this card or at least has helped to foster it.

Posted by: rj.paul | March 16, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
Clinton waited to get to the senate to appologize for Ferraro's remarks and did it publicly in front of them. She even appologized in person to Obama. While Obama has repudiated his pastor now, he did after 20 years of sitting in this man's church and did it only after it was made public to others. Since he doesn't have much experience, he based his claims on judgement and knowledge about the world. Can you really claim you didn't know anything about a church or a pastor after 20 years? I really think Obama is done and I'm not sure what will happen in the African-American community.

Posted by: lynnellingw | March 16, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Is Hilary a closet Republican? She praises McCain during this campaign? Is that smart?

The Clintons have too much dirty baggage from their past that they hope the American people will just simply forget about. Are they hoping we just have short memories? Her pattern on behavior will just create new baggage and shady behavior if she ever gets to be president.

She fights dirty during her campaign because she has to. She has nothing of merit on her own. She's nothing more than a bully and a bully is really a coward in disguise. She can't do her campaign above board because she either doesn't have those set of skills or she has nothing at all to carry her on her own merits. So of course it makes sense she has to fight dirty.

If Obama fought dirty ala Hilary style, he'd have a lot of issues from Hilary's past to dig up and throw in her face as well.

Thank goodness SOMEONE in this campaign is above all the dirty mud slinging.

Posted by: Katherine2 | March 16, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure if I'm more confused or disappointed by what stands in for media coverage these days. Since KO comes from a sports background what is his role as it relates to the Democratic Party's nomination process? Does he see himself as a referee or as a cheerleader? All I know is that the one sure way to spoil a game is for referees, coaches or fans to interject themselves into the game. It is profoundly sad when the most clear-eyed sober analysis is coming from Karl Rove.

Posted by: rgravell | March 16, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

If Wright is right, then why should Obama repudiate him?? Isn't Obama being hypocritical??? I have seen African-Americna bloggers here take their cuts of Obama for being an Uncle Tom about Rev. Wright.

So what is the Obama position?
He didn't know and if he did then he would have done something?

He didn't know but if he did then he would have agreed with Rev. Wright?

He knew and did nothing, so he rightly did nothing about Wright?

Then there is the ABC Report that Obama was told 1 year ago to distance himself from Wright.
See: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/just-what-did-o.html

Didn't Obama ask anyone why he should distance himself from his spiritual mentor?

Obviously Obama knew or should have been on notice to make inquiry into what his pastor had been saying that would require him to distance himself from the good pastor.

This whole episode has raised many more questions about Obama than even I had before it all started.

To say that it will all blow over, as Senator Bradley said this morning, is more an act of whistling past the grave yard than an accurate predictor of things to come.

We must ask ourselves at this juncture as Democrats who have suffered through 8 years of George W. Bush's Corporate take over of the White House.

What is more important -- A Democrat in the White House or an African American Democrat in the White House?

If reaching for this African-American is beyond our reach, then we get the Third Bush Administration.

If we go with Hillary, we start the General Election with 47% of the country already committed against our candidate, due to the high negatives that she carries.

What looked like a lead pipe sinch not too long ago, now looks like a cliff hanger.

And unlike MSNBC Keith, Chris and the boys, I do not in any way criticize Hillary for keeping this campaign competitive so that these stories are coming out.

As a Democrat, I would much rather hear about Rev. Wright in March while there is time to correct this problem, than to have Rev. Wright god damming America on October 28, 2008.

And let us remember, it is only March, God knows what else the Republicans are gathing up on Obama for timed release through the Fall of this year.

It is one good thing about Hillary in this regard, all of the junk in her trunk is already known, all they can do to her is rehash old hash.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 16, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I applaud Olbermann for saying this. It's about time someone from the media call Clinton out for her inexcusable behavior, tepid reaction and comments with the Ferraro fiasco. This is NOT the kind of president I ever want for America and the fact that it took days for Clinton to do ANYTHING about the Ferraro incident speaks volumes of where her head and heart are at.

The contrast is stark between Powers resigning from the Obama campaign and Ferraro resigning from Clinton's. At least Powers had the decency to apologize for her remark. Did Ferraro???! Ferraro's resignation response is disgusting and blinded by her obvious racism attitude. How dare she imply that Obama is where he is simply because he is black. It's this kind of mindset that will continue to lead America down a path that just repeats history, is divisive, and doesn't move us forward as a people.

For all you Clinton supporters out there... if you can't see how Clinton's handling of this at a time when it was crucial for her to show what she's really made of, then I am truly worried about the future of America for the next 4 years if Clinton gets the nomination.

Posted by: Katherine2 | March 16, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

While the MSM and Sunday squawking heads have us examining the latest by-association hairball, this weekend Obama has picked up 9 more national convention delegates from Iowa's county conventions, while Hilliary lost one.

Obama's gain came mainly from former Edwards supporters.... now that is news.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | March 16, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

leichtman wrote, "and dr you don't think that Pastor Wright saying he does not believe in saying God Bless America but that..you know the rest, will frighten Columbus voters?"

A child has every right not to bless a parent who has been abusive toward them as the US has been toward African Americans and Native Americans. A true liberal would alleviate the causes of the anger of minorities rather than castigate them for not blessing a country that's hurting them.

Unlike Hillary with Ferraro, Obama has already repudiated the pastor. No amount of re-spinning the old news will make this a relevant issue for thinking Ohioans. As for the un-thinking bigots who voted against Obama because of his race, they will turn against Hillary if she becomes the nominee. Once you raise a snake (bigot), don't be surprised if it bites you.

Please don't call Obama B.O. It's beneath you. Esp. those decrying the sexism of some of the anti-Hillary posts shouldn't respond with racism. That would only show that we're all bigots and that Rev. Wright is probably right.

Posted by: DrSubtle | March 16, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

leichtman:
I have taken your comment to heart and have gone back to look at that clip of YouTube tape that showed Obama present in the church when Wright made the vulgar comments about Clinton "riding dirty". I had come to the conclusion that one of three things were possible:

1. The clip was correct and Obama lied;
2. The blogger who posted the clip had done a cut and paste job and thus had misrepresented the situation to the bloggers on this site; or
3. Fox News had done a cut and paste job to smear Obama.

I have done a further examination and found another YouTube site where this particular sermon was recorded and find that all three of the above explanations are all incorrect.

The site is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kun1-gQkkLc

The full news report had the clip of Wright doing his pony ride in the pulpit and then it went to Obama greeting voters. In the clip posted here on this site, the full report was not given.

Obama was not in the church at all during that sermon, or at least this clip is not proof that he was.

Please, do not get me wrong about all of this.

My problem is not with Obama, it is with the people with which he has surrounded himself and it is with the double standards that we see in the media.

Just as we are asked to give Obama every benefit of the doubt when it comes to comments from his wife or his preacher, why do we not give Clinton every benefit of the doubt as well? Instead the media immediately not only assumes the worst, but projects this onto Senator Clinton and then demands that she renounce the conclusions that they have projected upon her.

It is a terrible distraction from the issues of this campaign, it is giving unfair advantage when the press should not be in the business of advantaging one side or the other.

And when it comes to the campaign, who is to say that the Republicans will not photo shop these tapes and put before people's eyes that which is surely in their minds -- namely that Obama does agree with Wright, that Obama's excuse that he never heard such things is patently false, and so the Republicans will put before people's eyes that which is in their minds.

Don't think that they will not and that this will not affect this campaign.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 16, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

life under republican rule...

'In an editorial this morning, the New York Times fact-checks Bush's economic speech:

Mr. Bush boasted about 52 consecutive months of job growth during his presidency. What matters is the magnitude of growth, not ticks on a calendar. The economic expansion under Mr. Bush -- which it is safe to assume is now over -- produced job growth of 4.2 percent. That is the worst performance over a business cycle since the government started keeping track in 1945. [...]

Mr. Bush was wrong to say wages are rising. On Friday morning, the day he spoke, the government reported that wages failed to outpace inflation in February, for the fifth straight month. Productivity growth has also weakened markedly in the past two years, a harbinger of a lower overall standard of living for Americans.'

look how the tax cuts are working! look at all the jobs they are creating!

Posted by: drindl | March 16, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

bu.. but screw what the American people think:

'The Maverick is willing to switch his positions for the radical right, but unwilling to do so for everyone else. For example, the senator has repeatedly advocated staying in Iraq, despite opposition from the majority of Americans. In 2007, McCain told CBS's 60 Minutes that he didn't care what the American public wanted:

"I believe that we can succeed and I believe the consequences of failure are catastrophic. Those who say just withdraw, then you say, 'What next?'" McCain asked in the 2007 interview.

"I wonder at what point do you stop doing what you think is right and you start doing what the majority of the American people want?" Pelley asked.

"Well, again, I disagree with what the majority of the American people want. Failure will lead to chaos, withdrawal will lead to chaos," McCain said at the time.

In addition to the Iraq war, McCain switched his position for conservatives on President Bush's tax cuts, the economic stimulus package, and even his opinions of Karl Rove.

So, to recap: When it comes to hard right conservatives, McCain's strategy is to cave in to their demands, even if it means switching his own positions. When it comes to the American public, McCain's strategy is to ignore their opinions and tell them what he (and the right wing) think is best.'

Posted by: drindl | March 16, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

McCain admits he will cave to pressure from Hannity:

'Last night, Fox News's Hannity and Colmes aired an interview with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). During the segment, McCain confirmed that he turned against comprehensive immigration reform after receiving pressure from the right wing:

HANNITY: After McCain/Kennedy was defeated, you said, I hear you. I understand. People don't trust us, and they want the borders secured first.

MCCAIN: That's exactly right. [...]

HANNITY: You are focused on securing the borders?

MCCAIN: Yes, sir.

HANNITY: Not -- you look at McCain-Kennedy, the country doesn't want it?

MCCAIN: We failed. My friend, we failed. I think you noticed, because you were one of the reasons.'

Posted by: drindl | March 16, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

The fact that the media has chosen to politicize what's said in a church --and the ugliness that's resulted from it -- shows how badly we have strayed by allowed relgion to enter politics. this is exactly what our founders feard.

And it's truly unfortunate that John McCain associates himself with preachers who are more offensive and danger than Wright, but the media chooses to ignore that. But it's just like always -- democrats are flayed for doing things republicans skate for -- every election.

Posted by: drindl | March 16, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

"As a liberal, I also believe Obama's pastor's words were extreme but they were closer to truth "

and dr you don't think that Pastor Wright saying he does not believe in saying God Bless America but that..you know the rest, will frighten Columbus voters?

Again why did B.O. refuse to respond to Pastor Wright's own April 2007 pleas to B.O. to distance himself from the pastor's own speeches. It took at least 11 months for B.O. to respond, what is that all about doctor.

And personally I trust a man I worked tirelessly for, Hillary's spiritual leader Gov/Minister Strickland any time over B.O. and Pastor Wright. That is an Ohio matchup I would take any time. I presum that you don't agree with Pastor Wright's words since B.O. has constantly told us that words do matter.

Posted by: leichtman | March 16, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

The left wing of the dem party is with Obama for good reason. He's the real deal as a liberal while HCR is just an opportunist. I have no doubt Olberman is for Obama. As a conservative who likes Obama, I think he's in some serious trouble over his preacher. To have a 20 year realtionship and not know he holds these disgusting views is hard to believe. Plus any compentent campaign vets itself before getting out of the gate. This should had been handled over a year ago and he should had never been put anywhere near his campaign. What were they thinking?

Posted by: vbhoomes | March 16, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

I have to say I am surprised this post has 218 comments "only".

Having said that,

SOCK IT TO HER AND HER- OLBERMAN, BABY!!!

The Billary dynamic duo has crossed the line so many times, it is nothing less than apalling. Is there a low to which these Clintonista losers will not stoop to.

Posted by: rfpiktor | March 16, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Some of the Clintonistas here are adopting the same tactics as the Clinton campaign. When asked about topic a, refer to topic b instead. We're talking about Ferraro and Hillary's refusal to drop Gerry from her campaign, not about the done deal of Obama already having dropped his pastor from his campaign.

Why change topics and say he did it too? I'm in Ohio and I know for a fact that if Hillary becomes the nominee, she will bring Republicans out of the woodwork to vote for McCain, even the rabid conservatives. Hillary and her campaign and her supporters need to realize that no amount of lipstick on the pig will make Hillary likeable. That's a fact.

As a liberal, I also believe Obama's pastor's words were extreme but they were closer to truth than Ferraro's ever were. The descendents of slaves in this country know more about how our country operates than those who have enjoyed white privilege. But all this is besides the topic of Ferraro. And I didn't bring it up first.

Posted by: DrSubtle | March 16, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Bill Bradley just told Tim Russert On Meet the Press that superdelegates should vote the same way as their constituents. Did Sen Bradley happen to miss the results of the Feb 5, 2008 New Jersey Primary? And why in the world is Tim Russert allowing such duplicity to stand unchallenged?

Apparently Keith is not alone in his pandering to B.O.

Posted by: leichtman | March 16, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Great job Keith. Now let's se you work on getting the Clinton's to release the income tax forms for years 2000-2007. Let's see where that $50 million came from.Olberman tells it like it is. Go Keith! This is so much better than watching the gibberish of Wolf Blitzer.

Posted by: majorteddy | March 16, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse


I can only wonder where the rest of the media is, and why Olbermann is, again, leading the way by showing courage. Now Clinton's donors are strong-arming the party to give her what she wants or they'll withhold their contributions. Forget the fact that SHE signed a pledge to willingly disenfranchise FL and MI and now only cares because she's losing. Clinton clearly believes that the power should rest in the hands of the powerful few and not the people. Between a shamble of a campaign and now the threats, it's clear what her leadership style would be if she managed to steal the election.

Posted by: Denni | March 16, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Olbermann builds a platform by smearing a known idiot in our government and gaining fame and recognition over something we all knew. Then the real agenda shows up. With Obama wiped out by his church and Hannity, the mainstream media, controlled by the Bush crime family, turns it sight back to their biggest fear, progressive government. Hillary isn't perfect, and I never heard her say she was. But she is definitely the best choice for president against the greed and lust of the military industrial complex of organized crime.

Posted by: kimkimminni1 | March 16, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

WTF is wrong with Olbermann. I use to like the guy, but he has such an obvious man-crush on Obama it is nauseating. All of MSNBC is pretty much that way. If he was objective at all he would realize Obama is the one running like a Rebublican. His whole campaign is built on his personal virtues and he uses the media to cleverly spin anything negative and to slime his opponents. The Obama campaign started to remind me way too much of GWB quite a while ago. Ferraro? Well she said what she said. I have maintained all along that if Obama was white he would be John Edwards. Same populist message, same gift for oratory, same rags to riches story, same lack of experience or any real depth. Am I missing something?

Posted by: hdimig | March 16, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

I find it funny
I find it sad

BO supporters note how he quickly moved to remove J Wright from his campaign list of Religious supporters

Quickly - decisively - unambiguous - those are the words of BO supporters

After 20 years? Quickly?
After 6-7 major racially ugly speeches?

No - good judgement and reaction would have been to leave the church - at the very latest the day he decided to run for President --- just as he decided - with 12 hours to spare to DISinvite the minister from his presidential race opening event

He knew then - what he knows now - but he asks us to drink the kool aid and says he only just learned

He only just learned it was 250K not 100k
He only just learned REZKO appraised the house he bought - walked in with him for a 20-30 minute tour

He just learned all that in time to have a REZKO Friday with the Chicago Papers - I guess BO preferrs news about REZKO vs truth about his lack of good judgment in belonging to a Church and following a philosophy whose purpose and positive meaning ended a decade ago

RE Keith - I too am one of those who got so fed up with his - ""I love Hillary Clinton BUT ..attack ...attack... I thank them for standing by me when I started my Statements re Bush but attack attack attack each and every attack being on HRC

And to bring balance - he lets BO use his show to give answers to questions that Keith lobs at him - when if you watch - you can feel the pain KO is feeling as his body shows he is in pain from learning what he - KO - has learned but does not want to believe

I now await the ten minute STATEMENT on how BO played the racial card every time he was attacked - even if it had nothing to do with race

It needs to be said

The Clintons referral to MLK and LBJ was a comment about a visionary and leader and a tough old cowboy of a President teaming up to get the belated Civil Rights laws passed. It was NOT a comment that it takes a White Man to do a Black Man's work - as BO camp pushed that alternative meaning in code every other day for a month

I await the ten minute STATEMENT on how BO
could not add up to 250K - until this Friday - but could only reach 150K till now

I await the truth re the land deal

I await the STATEMENT denouncing the inability of BO to understand how wrong he is to choose J Wright as his MENTOR

BO got my senator vote and will again - and I hope he runs for Governor and I will vote yes - and indeed after HRC he is my second choice for PRES based on his policy statements - and the sell out in 2008 McCain is number #19,876,549 (8 years ago he would have been about fifth in my list and the ONLY Republican)

Re Keith - I shut off his biased show about a week ago - stopped watching one of my favorite shows.

I did this becauseas he has been 100% unfair in the DEM race - and has lost all sense of what is right and wrong.

Bush deserves the heat - HRC deserves balance and BO deserves being told publicly it was bad poor judgement to hang at such a place of God for a decade of Sundays and it is NOT swift or decisive action to remove the minister ONLY after ABCNEWS played the videos - and the uproar started

Posted by: uziel18 | March 16, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

bobmoses, you're right, as a Canadian I shouldn't be "meddling".

But I'm certainly not a liberal. My real point is that from afar, it's clear that with Clinton, the ends justify the means. Personally, I find it rather scary that a person such as this could hold one of the most powerful elected positions in the world.

Posted by: c2c3 | March 16, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Keith didn't call Obama out on the Rev. Wright issue because Obama responded quickly and appropriately. He denounced Rev. Wright's comments (which were made some time ago and resurfaced coincidently enough after Clinton's fiasco; I'm sure she and her campaign had nothing to do with it or that photo... sure).

Keith correctly called Clinton out, not so much on the remarks, but Clinton's (lack of) response to them. It took her three days to dismiss Ms. Ferraro. Obama did it right away.

Clinton and her campaign are going to try whatever it takes to claim what she's always felt is rightly hers, no matter what we, the voters, think. Her last chance is to scare white voters away from Obama.

I hope it doesn't work.

Posted by: keithwlaskey | March 16, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

So Keith and Matthews want to do to Obama what Monica did to bubba. So what?. I'd add Jon Stewart to that list too.

PS so Obama's pastor turns out to be a racist whackjob and an America-hater. Of course, Obama never heard any of these sermons, during his 20 years sitting in the pews.

PPS Obama is such a noobie when it comes to politics. When the NYTimes tried to torpedo McCain, he held a news conf the next day and stayed until he answered every question. When Obama's scandal hits, he issues a series of short, terse, and incomplete statements, hoping something would change the subject.

I'm guessing McCain will have him for lunch, if he gets the nom.

Posted by: JD | March 16, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

c2c3 wrote:

"Being Canadian, I can't understand why Americans can't see what Clinton is doing."

Well, isn't it obvious? We are too stupid to understand ("understand" meaning sharing your political views.)

Thank you so much for your guidence. We Americans wouldn't know what to do with ourselves without an endless stream of condesending comments from liberals from foreign countries.

Question for you: Do you care what American Republicans think of Canadian politics? Didn't think so.

Posted by: bobmoses | March 16, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse

Being Canadian, I can't understand why Americans can't see what Clinton is doing.

She is turning this race into a race issue.

She is determined to turn white people against Obama in the hopes of winning. If that doesn't work, she will have destroyed this man so much that he will not be able to win against the Republican and she will run in 2012 with a big "I told you so!"

I hope Americans don't fall for it. You have the opportunity to elect a very gifted, intelligent person. "Lucky" you!

Posted by: c2c3 | March 16, 2008 7:00 AM | Report abuse

Obermann sounds like a Dobberman dog. Chris Matthews reminds me of a rabid rabies bitten dog who is actually a fag*got sucking up for a physical relationship with Obama. I am a democrat who would prefer a Mccain to win in November over a Obama who is surrounded by people like his pastor who are basically thinking like Osama. Just you wait for the video which shows Obama applauding his pastors speech which will be his exit. He lied when he said he did not know for 20 years what is his racist pastor really said. The video will be his last song....

Posted by: vs_sv | March 16, 2008 6:39 AM | Report abuse

I watch Olbermann every day, and even though I like Hillary, I cheered when I saw the Special Comment. Clinton should have denounced Ferraro and dumped her at the first hint of her ugly racism. She deserved a good scolding. Since Obama appeals to the more progressive Dems in the first place, I don't think Olbermann's scolding will have much affect on the election.

Posted by: amy_e | March 16, 2008 6:25 AM | Report abuse

I hadn't noticed the press going ga-ga over McCain's endorsement by the pro-Armagedon freak, The Right Rev. John Niege, have you?

Any fellow Catholics out there who are caught up in this religious intolerance? Any of you ever been embarrassed to your soul by anything the Pope has said? (I have.)

Ever wonder if the Clintons are so hyped on going to so many BLACK churches? Because they're so devout, no doubt (and love singing spirituals). Right...

This whole thing, to me, is about bigotry cloaked in a thin veneer of self-righteousness. Look to your own spiritual houses first before throwing brick-bats at others.

Posted by: miraclestudies | March 16, 2008 4:20 AM | Report abuse

I guess Chris you are doing Barack Obama another solid by keeping your article focused on your buddy and his Obama crush. And Barack Obama guest speaking on his show didn't really mean he owes the guy or anything?

Chris I posted a comment on your last article but since you still have not mentioned Wright? I think I'll post it again here as it still applies.

The "Fix" is a name that has a double meaning during this election when Barack Obama is concerned. There seems to be only positive spin going on here. It would be out of place to talk about Barack Obama's Chicago minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright here but Chris has not mentioned it. Would a story like this bring to much attention to what Chris knows I have been reporting on his this blog and all over the internet even since before Obama decided to run. Information that can be verified. IL. U.S. Senator Presidential Candidate Barack Obama , IL. U.S. Senator Dick Durbin co-chair Obama 2008 are being complicit in allowing the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to treat me an American U.S. Hispanic citizen who reported incidents of race discrimination in the state of Illinois in an unequal, biased, & discriminatory manner by preventing me the same race discrimination charges non-Hispanics enjoy as a matter of record and then covering up their conduct. Despite there being ample time for each to respond, redress, and stop the above mentioned serious form of discrimination nothing ,to date, has been done to fairly & fully address, redress,and stop this still ongoing serious form of discrimination which has allowed Hormel Foods Corporation, UFCW, and Target Corporation to not be held accountable for race discrimination against me because I happen to be Hispanic. Inaction ,complicity, & deliberate silence on the part of (for instance but not limited to) Obama and Durbin are responsible for my American civil rights continuing to be violated in Illinois as it relates to this serious form of discrimination in their state of Illinois and for nothing being done to fully & fairly redress and stop this still ongoing form of discrimination against an American who happens to be a Hispanic in Illinois. Hispanics who Know are just showing they will not be willing victims of his "Good Judgment". He has this still going on in Illinois as we speak but Barack Obama tells Hispanic/Latinos nothing about it! I repeat this is verifiable, ongoing and Barack Obama should address it but does not and you can guess why. Included is a link to just one example (If you happen to be a Hispanic in Illinois you have no race and therefore cannot be a victim of race discrimination as I can atest) this is on IDHR's own website in the public domain.

http://www.state.il.us/dhr/Orders/2006/Oct_06/Zuniga,%20M.htm

Barack Obama is continuing to get a free pass from Chris as this verifiable information has been posted by me and ignored to date. Why? What part of verifiable is not clear.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/04/fix_picks_edwards_and_obama_un.html


Posted by: Chaos45i | March 16, 2008 3:56 AM | Report abuse

Keith did what he had to do. Ferraro's comments were a good deal more racist than anything Wright ever said and have no place in American politics in the 21st century. Clinton did not have the sense to distance herself from Ferraro when it was the right thing to do. She only did it when it was the ONLY thing to do. Hillary, in an incredibly tone-deaf and opportunistic way, hoped it would blow over and did not do enough to denounce Ferraro's ridiculous hate mongering when it would have mattered. I say ridiculous because does anyone seriously think being Black with a "funny name" as Obama himself put it is an advantage in American politics?

Wright is as Obama said a product of bitterly divided generation. Things are better now because those fights happened but they were not easy and they left scars on those like Mr. Wright who were there on the front lines. Would you love this country as much if you fought a war for her but came home only to be treated like dirt? Probably not.

All that said I have to say easy there jsu4193k. I'm a supporter too and I don't disagree with what you say overall but your use of CAPS and telling everyone who disagrees with you to eff off is not convincing anyone. The Obama campaign works because it speaks to our higher natures. It speaks to what we CAN be not what we HAVE been. I support Obama because he shows real statesmanship and grace under fire. I hope all my fellow supporters will follow his good example. Thanks all. Let's turn the page! Obama '08

Posted by: noway23 | March 16, 2008 2:38 AM | Report abuse

svreader

I'm a 52 year old white male lifelong Democrat former paper mill worker and current ancient college student who has actually physically worked for and financially supported Dem candidates in local, state, and national elections for 32 years so far. I believe Obama is the best chance to positively change the direction of our country. Up until now, I have maintained that I would support the Democratic candidate. I will absolutely not vote for Hillary.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 16, 2008 2:31 AM | Report abuse

svreader!!!

YOU ARE JUST A TYPICAL CLINTONISTA, SPREADING YOUR DISGUSTING SLIME, JUST GET A LIFE OR GET LOST

BIGOTS LIKE YOU DISGUST ME......YOU TALK ABOUT SLUMS, DOES "WHITEWATER" RING A BELL....I GUESS NOT COS YOU ARE A HYPOCRITICAL CLINTONISTA

Posted by: jsu4193k | March 16, 2008 2:27 AM | Report abuse

eFF ALL YOU CLINTONIAN BIGOTS & CLINTONIAN PHARESEES!!!

WHO INSTEAD OF LOSING WITH DIGNITY,PREFER TO BURN THE DEM PARTY SHIP WITH YOUR SLIMES AND ENDORSING JOHN McSAME McBUSH


KUDOS TO THE CLINTON SUPPORTERS WHO PUT THEIR PARTY AND COUNTRY FIRST. IF HILLARY
WERE TO WIN "FAIRLY" AND I MEAN "FAIRLY," I WILL VOTE FOR HER


BUT CLINTONISTAS WOULD RATHER HELP THEIR NARCSSISTIC POWER MONGERING CANDIDATE IN BURNING THE DEM PARTY BECAUSE SHE WASN'T CROWNED QUEEN AS PREDICTED BY THE MEDIA EARLIER IN THE RACE

Posted by: jsu4193k | March 16, 2008 2:10 AM | Report abuse

eFF ALL YOU CLINTONIAN BIGOTS & CLINTONIAN PHARESEES!!!

WHO INSTEAD OF LOSING WITH DIGNITY,PREFER TO BURN THE DEM PARTY SHIP WITH YOUR SLIMES AND ENDORSING JOHN McSAME McBUSH


KUDOS TO THE CLINTON SUPPORTERS WHO PUT THEIR PARTY AND COUNTRY FIRST. IF HILLARY
WERE TO WIN "FAIRLY" AND I MEAN "FAIRLY," I WILL VOTE FOR HER


BUT CLINTONISTAS WOULD RATHER HELP THEIR NARCSSISTIC POWER MONGERING CANDIDATE IN BURNING THE DEM PARTY BECAUSE SHE WASN'T CROWNED QUEEN AS PREDICTED BY THE MEDIA EARLIER IN THE RACE

Posted by: jsu4193k | March 16, 2008 2:10 AM | Report abuse

eFF ALL YOU CLINTONIAN BIGOTS & CLINTONIAN PHARESEES!!!

WHO INSTEAD OF LOSING WITH DIGNITY,PREFER TO BURN THE DEM PARTY SHIP WITH YOUR SLIMES AND ENDORSING JOHN McSAME McBUSH


KUDOS TO THE CLINTON SUPPORTERS WHO PUT THEIR PARTY AND COUNTRY FIRST. IF HILLARY
WERE TO WIN "FAIRLY" AND I MEAN "FAIRLY," I WILL VOTE FOR HER


BUT CLINTONISTAS WOULD RATHER HELP THEIR NARCSSISTIC POWER MONGERING CANDIDATE IN BURNING THE DEM PARTY BECAUSE SHE WASN'T CROWNED QUEEN AS PREDICTED BY THE MEDIA EARLIER IN THE RACE

Posted by: jsu4193k | March 16, 2008 2:10 AM | Report abuse

I noticed that Obama ran right over to do an interview with Olbermann right after the videos were made public. He sure couldn't have a bigger fan unless it is either Russert or Mathews. And of course, Olbermann soothed Obama's feelings. It was enough to show exactly what Olbermann is up to. MSNBC will be Obama's cover on the Pastor Wright outrage. Olbermann has got to be the biggest hypocrite on cable TV. He is so phony.

Posted by: cliftonjones105 | March 16, 2008 1:57 AM | Report abuse

Keith delivered the most passionate Special Comment capturing the mood and the spirit of the Democratic activist electorate.

I agree with Chris that you can ignore Olberman at your own risk. His amazing and powerful statements resonates with those of us who have followed the campaign closely and were prepared to support either candidate until Hillary began to campaign as a Republican.

I will support the true Democrat who has earned the respect and admiration of a new generation of voters and is leading the way to a New Political Dialogue whose aim it is to achieve understanding, build bridges and create viable solutions through working with the other side. The era of sectarian, partisan fighting with the goal of winning at all costs by demonizing our opponents and arrogant political correctness is over.

Obama 08

Posted by: rpmorales | March 16, 2008 1:52 AM | Report abuse

svreader the resident idiot.

Relentlessly Pathetic.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 16, 2008 1:48 AM | Report abuse

svreader the resident idiot.

Pathetic.

Posted by: meg54136 | March 16, 2008 1:47 AM | Report abuse

jerkhoff --

I don't think I or anyone else is going to convince you of anything. Your screen name clearly describes you to a "T".

You're a classic Obama-nut.

Posted by: svreader | March 16, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

Hey svreader - do you think you're going to convince any more of us if you keep posting the same article over and over again?

I hear that Obama once shook hands with a man who owed at least $25.00 in unpaid library fines. His grandmother ripped the tag off a mattress while crossing state lines. Oh, and he's been seen in public with known thespians...

Posted by: jerkhoff | March 16, 2008 12:46 AM | Report abuse

I always enjoy watching Keith Olbermann and his Countdown. They help me keep hope and my sanity in this world of medias dominated by spinless reporters. I concur totally with kmcnyasha's comment:

"Keith Olbermann has offered a refreshing new look on politics, at a time when many of the so-called analysts just regurgitate talking points from the various campaigns. He has the courage of his convictions, and raises issues to our attention that are often ignored by the rest of the media. Bravo Keith, keep up the good work!"

Posted by: Logan6 | March 16, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

The issue here is: Was Ms Ferraro right or wrong? Was she racist or not? What Olbermann did was calling a spade a spade.
Of course Ferraro was wrong. Of course she was racist to the hilt. Did Hillary condemned or distanced herself from such polarising racist comments? NO. Why should she. After all, it is she who engineered it. I take my hat off for Mr Olbermann for his straight talk. Racism should have no place, not just in America, but anywhere in the world. Whether it is from Ms Ferraro or from Rev Wright, it should be roundly condemned.

Posted by: jisantiago | March 16, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

To the Hillary and McCain fans trying to make mountains out of molehills: you can keep trying to "work the refs" but you are sounding more and more unhinged.

Posted by: tom | March 16, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/just-what-did-o.html


What did Obama know and when did he know it?

In his Friday night cable mea culpas on the incendiary comments made by his spiritual adviser Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., repeatedly said, "I wasn't in church during the time that these statement were made. I did not hear such incendiary language myself, personally. Either in conversations with him or when I was in the pew, he always preached the social gospel. ... If I had heard them repeated, I would have quit. ... If I thought that was the repeated tenor of the church, then I wouldn't feel comfortable there."

Obama told CNN that he "didn't know about all these statements. I knew about one or two of these statements that had been made. One or two statements would not lead me to distance myself from either my church or my pastor. ... If I had thought that was the tenor or tone on an ongoing basis, then yes, I don't think it would have been reflective of my values."

But according to a New York Times story from a year ago, the Obama campaign dis-invited Wright from delivering a public invocation at Obama's candidacy announcement.

"Fifteen minutes before Shabbos I get a call from Barack," Wright told the Times. "One of his members had talked him into uninviting me."

Posted by: ericr1970 | March 15, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

pkm: I just watched the video and even tried it in slow motion, you are wrong and owe Sen Obama an apology an immediate retraction. He has enough problems with the Pastor's statement, let's not embellish. I am a Hillary supporter, but I expect responsible criticism only, yours was not.

Posted by: leichtman | March 15, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

pkm said "I checked out your YouTube, the one where Wright makes the lewd comment about Bill Clinton and in the last frame, yep, that is Obama without doubt"


pkm: this is an extremely, extremely explosive story "if true". I truly hope that B.O. was not in the audience clapping in that video as you imply that would be devestating. "If" true and I am sure the media would have picked up on it that is extremely troubling. If not please retract.

Your earlier post about Keith sir, leads me to believe that you are a serious person and would not just be spreading baseless rumors here.

Posted by: leichtman | March 15, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Seriously though, You CLINTONIANS are FOOLISH!

You berate Keith for putting Hillary and Geraldine in their place, and then you say he's a hypocrit for not giving the same punishment to Barack and Dr. Wright.

You know what Barack did? He IMMEDIATELY denounced Dr. Wright's words and then had him RESIGN as spiritual advisor--totally unrelated words that Dr. Wright spoke outside of the campaign.

What did Hillary do? Not really care until she was forced to a couple days later. Meanwhile you have Geraldine playing the martyr.

It's unfathomable to think that it's the Obama supporters that are delusional. The Clintonians have lost ALL touch with reality.

Posted by: jadanzzy | March 15, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

MoreAndBetterPolls and chersplace:

I agree with MoreAndBetterPolls when MABP observed:

"At the conclusion of the FOX newsclip, we see Barack Obama standing surrounded by caucasians, mainly young blondes, at another venue.

While it is an obvious splice job, the real question is whether FOX spliced it, or whether "chersplace" spliced it."

Does anyone know if the FOX clip was altered after it appeared, or did it run on FOX that way?

Tomorrow I will send the clip to FOX to ask its opinion. I actually assume a poster to "Youtube" spliced it, not FOX or "cherspalce".

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 15, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

SV, I think you and I are almost the only people posting at this point, but and I feel a bit ridiculous wasting time talking to you, but let me make a couple of points:

Even a cursory look at Obama's record doesn't reflect any of the anger that Wright was shown expressing in those videos. He's been in elective office for 10 years, right?

You think Clinton ran a good campaign? To believe that, you have to believe that Obama is one hell of a snake oil salesman. Where was she in the polls six months ago? How many blunders has she made once the campaign got serious? How pathetic and disorganized her team has been?

If she's so good, how'd she lose to the rookie?

Anyway, the only point that really matters is this: Hillary could never have won the general election, and if by some fluke she did she'd have been a disastrous President. Bill Clinton without the charm. Obama still can--but only if she doesn't force the Democratic party to self-destruct.

Posted by: sethbullock53 | March 15, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama has known and been influenced by Wright for 20 years. Two significant factors here of how much that influence has been.

1. Obama is only 47 years old so, since Obama was 27 years old he has been influenced by Wright, almost his entire adult life.

2. Obama did not have the benefit of either his father or his step father in his life, both of which were Black. Insteady he was Black and raised by a White mother and her White Parents.

Where was the influencial Black father figure in Obama's life?? We have not heard of one yet other that -- Jeremiah Wright.

That makes this situation serious, not that Wright was a campaign worker or what have you, even a pastor, but he was more for Obama. He was Obama's spiritual mentor, the guy who had a hand in shaping and forming who Barak Obama has become.

Wright is not a crazy uncle, but really a father figure. Obama did not distance himself from Wright earlier because to do so would mean that Obama would have to distance himself from himself.

Obama was shaped by his mother, by his spiritual mentor and his wife is a reflection of his life now.

For a look at how his Mom shaped him, read this:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa01.html

For a look at how Wright shaped him, you can look at the videos that are now all over the blogsphere,

And for his wife, well, she has only recently become proud of the United States.

Now, imagine for a moment that you are a Democratic Super Delegate. Maybe all elements of the Democratic Party will buy Obama's excuses. I for one do not, but assume that I am the only Democrat who sees Obama's denials for what they are, namely, if he didn't "reject and denounce" he could fold his tent today. So it was for survival.

The bigger question for the Super Delegates is how often will Wright's video be played where he God Damns America?? How often. How many times will the Party and its candidates take that body blow for the sake of Mr. Obama?

And its only March. Who knows what else will surface on this man who has been on the national stage as an elected official only since January 20, 2005 and who 18 months later started running for President.

What is audacious about this run is that it is premised on bringing us all together. Nixon promised that and he too came from a childhood of rejection. He was rejected by the Ivy Leaguers whom he dispised like Kennedy and the Wall Street Republicans. Nixon was from somewhere out in California.

What did Nixon do when he got to office? Enemy lists, paranoia, criminal conduct.

If Obama is from the same sort of background of personal rejection and wants to bring us together, how do we know that he will not revert to form, revert to what Rev. Wright ingrained in him.

I did not trust Obama before, but it was more a feeling or intuition that he was hiding something. You have to look in his eyes to see that he has something to hide.

With the exposure of Rev. Wright and his "sentiments", some of that is coming out now. Obama was wondering when or if we would all find that little part of himself out. And we did.

Do we really, as Democrats want to put this guy on top of the ticket, not knowing what the Republicans are holding for October?

Sorry Obamotics, Hillary didn't out the preacher. Nor has she exploited the outting. She is doing what every good politician does when her opponent develops a gaping hole in his boat, she is sitting by and watching.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 15, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Well, SV, since you're such a charmer, I watched your video.

Guess Obama made some mistakes, associating with that guy.

One of the things I like about Obama is that he's willing to admit he makes mistakes sometimes.

Can you think of a single instance when Senator Clinton has admitted to making a mistake? She won't even say that voting for war was a mistake!

You clearly spend a lot of time hunched over your computer, so you have to be aware that there are literally scores of Rezkos in the Clinton's closets. Obama has too much class to use them, but the Republican 527s won't. I mean, you know this--I'm not making it up. Hsu and Mark Rich are just the two that pop up.

Is the idea that Obama is vulnerable because he's running as "clean" and she's not because she's running as "dirty"? Surely not? Really--I'm being serious here.

Posted by: sethbullock53 | March 15, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama's pledged delegate lead grows by EIGHT over Clinton tonight @ the Iowa county conventions. (He picks up 7 more pledged delegates, Clinton loses 1) (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/15/obama_wins_7_more_delegates_in.html)

At the Iowa county conventions:
Of Edwards' 14 delegates, 7 stuck w/ Edwards, one remains uncommitted, the rest went for Obama.

Let's Recap ---
CAUCUS NIGHT:
Obama: 16
Clinton: 15
Edwards: 14

TODAY:
Obama: 23
Clinton: 14
Edwards: 7
uncommitted: 1

Posted by: NoCal | March 15, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Seth --

WATCH THE VIDEO!!!

YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING!!!

"Bullocks" is the perfect name for you.

You are an arrogant, infantile, ass.

Posted by: svreader | March 15, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

right, SV, mensa invites people to join in "grammar school". Especially illiterates like you.

Obama has slums! And you sure do care a lot about those folks.

Just a game? I just want to win?

I'll tell you what I want to win.

I want to win hope for the country. I want to turn our backs on the cynicism and division of the last 20 years. I want tactics of Atwater and Rove and Penn behind us forever. I want politicians who are both smart AND principled. I want the world as I hope it can be and not as I fear it is.

for the world I fear it is, all we have to do is elect McCain. Or nominate Clinton, which would have the same result.

Obama might not work out as a President. But he might be one of the greatest ever. That's what I'm hoping for--and that's what I'm voting for. And so are millions more.

Posted by: sethbullock53 | March 15, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

seth --

My IQ is quite high, thank you.

I was invited to join mensa back when I was in grammar school.

I won't venture what your IQ is, but you clearly lack both a heart and a soul.

You don't care how many people suffered and died in Obama's slums.

This is just a big game to you.

All you want to do is "win"

I feel sorry for your parents!!!

Posted by: svreader | March 15, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters like "seth" have more arrogance, and less to be arrogant about, than group I've ever run into in my life.
Obama supporters like logan6 are infantile.

seth and other members of the "cult of Obama" cover their eyes and ears to keep out information they don't want to hear.

I and other readers have posed links to news reports from Chicago TV and newspapers about Obama's slums,
but cult members like seth continue to claim that "there's no evidence", or
"people voted for Obama"

No matter how much evidence Obana's supporters like seth see, they just cover their eyes and ears and sing "LA LA LA"

The truth is in the public record.

The evidence has been posted over and over.

The truth will be the end of the "cult of Obama"

Posted by: svreader | March 15, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

I am so disappointed with Keith Olbermann; he used to be my "not to be missed" show. By Super Tuesday, though, I had gotten so disgusted by his egregiously pro-Obama and anti-Clinton bias that I stopped watching Countdown. It is obvious that he has picked Obama as his candidate, and that he is spinning the news as mightily as he can to support that candidate and denigrate Hillary. Olbermann and the rest of the MSNBC commentators routinely mock those who express any doubts about Obama's readiness to take the most powerful position in the world. He has lost this viewer.

Posted by: Lamentations | March 15, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

For anyone not familiar with this forum, you should know that SVReader appears to have an i.q. of around 11. What he lacks in articulateness and analytical ability, he makes up in volume, and admittedly, work ethic.

Guess those people in Chicago really hate Obama, huh? Like you? So, if I might ask, what were the margins he lost by when he ran for Senate? I guess he lost the Democratic primary in Illinois, too, huh? What? He won both, big, even among white people?

Maybe the people of Chicago know something the Clinton trolls don't?

Posted by: sethbullock53 | March 15, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters arrogantly claim that only they can bring "change"

Their claim is so childish it's infantile.

Every candidate running for President will bring "change"

The question is, what kind of "change" would each candiate bring?

What kind of "change" do they care about?

Barak Obama has shown himself to be completely without any concern for the poorest of the poor who voted for him and elected him in Chicago.

Obama let the very same people who elected him and trusted him rot in unheated slums.

Is that the kind of man we want as President of the United States of America?

There is only one possible answer.

The answer is NO.

Say NO to Obama's empty hype and cruel treatment of the poorest of the poor.

Say NO to Barry Obama.

Lots of people in Chicago wish they had.

Posted by: svreader | March 15, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps Pastor Wright is a subliminal
reason for Obama's desire to embrace people of ALL RACES.

Posted by: Iwantmyvoicetobeheard | March 15, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

In a few weeks, Obama won't be leading anywhere.

Anyone who supports Obama has no clue who he really is.

Watch the Video.

Obama is a real jerk.

Obama let the people who elected him in Chicago rot in slums when he was supposed to get them decent housing and he funneled $100M to his friend Rezko.

It was Obama's responsibility to make sure his voters got what they paid for.

He didn't do his job.

He didn't care what happened to them.

He only cared about himself.

Does winning the primaries mean so much to Obama's groupies that they abandon all principle?

How can they even THINK of supporting a man who did what Obama did in Chicago to the poorest of the poor who elected him???

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Channel 5, Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the real Obama is a really bad guy


Posted by: svreader | March 15, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

chersplace

I checked out your YouTube, the one where Wright makes the lewd comment about Bill Clinton and in the last frame, yep, that is Obama without doubt.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 15, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Keith you were awesome! You said much of what many were already thinking, but you said it best.

Bravo Keith!


Posted by: Iwantmyvoicetobeheard | March 15, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

svreader, you ma'am are an idiot and don't deserve a computer. you're constant posting on wapo.com is infantile and undeserving of respect. you truly exemplify the the stereotypical "american idiot" the world paints us as. if social darwinism was still effective, you and your entire gene pool would be wiped off the earth and everyone would be happy. you need a life and a job and some intelligence. when i see your posts as well as JakeD and rat-teh, i'm reminded that the world is full of biased, stubborn, ignorant idiots who couldn't get through high school. congratulations on being a douche bag and proving it so fervently.

Posted by: aschilli | March 15, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Ah, the Clintonistas on this forum--as twisted as Hillary and W Jefferson--the "we'll do anything and besides we deserve it anyway" power mad couple whose Life Plan for the first duel Presidency, planned at Yale Law, continues to be inflicted on us. You see--that's the problem with opening the Race Door, Billary. It just goes down hill from there. Now it's an actor in your domestic theatre. I know that the Billary is willing to take down the entire Democratic Party out of its own anger and sense of entitlement. Because it's not about wars of choice, national bankruptcy, or joining the former great powers club. It's not about that. It's about THEM.

Posted by: kinoworks | March 15, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Olberman has become so slanted towards Barack that as a Hillary supporter I often have to turn him off and watch Hannity and Colmes instead. I sometimes find I'm getting more objective coverage of HC there.

I thought KO was fairly soft questioning Obama about his minister and Rezko Friday night.

Posted by: ladyleo | March 15, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

From the Chicago Sun Times:

For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side.

It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on.

But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building....

The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found.

"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official. "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''

Eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district....

Rezko and Mahru had no construction experience when they created Rezmar in 1989 to rehabilitate apartments for the poor under the Daley administration. Between 1989 and 1998, Rezmar made deals to rehab 30 buildings, a total of 1,025 apartments. The last 15 buildings involved Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland during Obama's time with the firm.

Rezko and Mahru also managed the buildings, which were supposed to provide homes for poor people for 30 years. Every one of the projects ran into trouble:

* Seventeen buildings -- many beset with code violations, including a lack of heat -- ended up in foreclosure.

* Six buildings are currently boarded up.

* Hundreds of the apartments are vacant, in need of major repairs.

* Taxpayers have been stuck with millions in unpaid loans.

* At least a dozen times, the city of Chicago sued Rezmar for failure to heat buildings.

Posted by: svreader | March 15, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Olberman's claim to fame in MSNBC is winning the 18-36 year male viewers for the struggling network.

Obama's scores strong on the 18-36 year old finacilly well off viewers. Olberman has to surrender to Obama for his survival.

Also, Chris Mathews and another sexist MSNBC colleague took some good whipping for their extreme sexism. Olberman did not like that either.

I still believe Olberman is a good hearted, non sexist individual. But events around us, above all survival always demand people do things that they are not always proud of.

Posted by: SeedofChange | March 15, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

you know, my priest doesn't believe in evolution. but i guess i'm responsible for his beliefs. and the sad part is, i'm a white male and a lot of what Rev Wright said is kinda true regarding race in america and that halloway girl and the fact that america's foreign policies led to 9-11 (sorry but deal with the fact we export more terror than anyone else). i'm sorry that hillary's all white female/anti black/latino democrat vote wants to ignore it, but its true. anyone who says hillary has better character or judgment compared to obama is a moron sadly. her history and scandals have proven that. then again half of all democrats are morons. they need someone to take care of them because they cant do it themselves (wah, my union's corrupt and is uncompetitive in the global market. wah). i believe in helping those who need a leg up but i'm not about constant free hand outs. if hillary gets the nomination, then this independent (along with 90% of other independents) will vote mccain.

Posted by: aschilli | March 15, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are infantile.

The cover their eyes and ears to keep out information they don't want to hear.

I and other readers have posed links to news reports from Chicago TV and newspapers about Obama's slums.

No matter how much evidence Obana's supporters see, they just cover their eyes and ears and sing "LA LA LA"

The truth is in the public record.

The evidence has been posted over and over.

The truth will be the end of the "cult of Obama"

Posted by: svreader | March 15, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters arrogantly claim that only they can bring "change"

Their claim is so childish, it's infantile.

Every candidate running for President will bring "change"

The question is, what kind of "change" would each candidate bring?

What kind of "change" do they care about?

Barak Obama has shown himself to be completely without any concern for the poorest of the poor who voted for him and elected him in Chicago.

Obama let the very same people who elected him and trusted him rot in unheated slums.

Is that the kind of man we want as President of the United States of America?

There is only one possible answer.

The answer is NO.

Say NO to Obama's empty hype and cruel treatment of the poorest of the poor.

Say NO to Barry Obama.

Lots of people in Chicago wish they had.

Posted by: svreader | March 15, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Sorry to see how many idiots there are out there who just don't get it.

Keith is the tribune of the left. Sanctimonious and self-important as he is sometimes, he's our guy.

The fact that he called Clinton's campaign out does not demonstrate his bias: it demonstrates the disgraceful, amoral way the Clintons are destroying the Democratic party. I agree with every word he said.

Posted by: sethbullock53 | March 15, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

One more thing: I have run across a few references to "Obama's cult followers." Give us a break! Enthusiastic people, young and old, form a cult because they support Obama, but are probably well-informed rational citizens if they are just as enthusiastic about Clinton. Puh-leeze. Maybe, just maybe it's a good thing that people, young and old, feel the need to get more involved with politics.

Posted by: fgg1 | March 15, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Olbermann is too often dishonest in his reporting and one sided in his "opinions".
It seems The Fix, might be overly enamored of him, because it gets Cillizza air time.
If Obama were white he would not be where he is today. There is no racism in that statement, that has never been uttered by Hillary.
That is all becoming irrelevant though, because the SuperDelegates now hold the key to this nomination, and the good Revered Wright has given them a bombshell that most of them will never be able to explain away to their contituents.
Hillary is once again the inevitable nominee.

Posted by: kesac | March 15, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

When I saw this "The Wrath of Keith Olberman" I, for a moment thought that Olberman had stopped drinking the Obama Kool Aide in the wake of the Rev. Wright debacle and had turned his wrath on Obama for bamboozling him into joining the Obama bandwagon.

But the second passed. The Ferraro comment, ambiguously racist if twisted enough and if you ignore the entire public life of Geraldine Ferraro pales in comparison to the remarks of Rev. Wright.

What did Olberman do with Rev. Wright?? He had Obama on to sell snake oil to him. To make him still feel okay about having taken sides in this campaign and for a joint strategy session to help Obama get past this train wreck.

In so doing, Olberman lost all of his former appeal that he had with me as a straight shooting news man. He is no newsman. He is no better than the people he mocks such as Limbaugh or OReilly. Neither of those are objective, both are aplogists for those in the political arena which they favor and now Olberman has joined them.

The Olberman that I once watched and enjoyed would have called Obama out on this big time and done one of his commentaries where he keeps calling the person to whom it is addressed "Sir".

What would the old Olberman have said if the politician caught in this spot would have walked out the excuse "I wasn't in church that day", or "I didn't know that Rev thought like that or I would have condemned it a long time ago."

The old Keith would have called that out for the bull crap that it is, Sir.

But the lapdog Keith who has become the people he has skewered, no, he joins in the excuse making and tries to give in credibilty.

In the process, Keith is not proping up Obama's credibility, but now Keith Olberman your credibility is down there with your candidate's -- sir.

And I won't be watching your Countdown much anymore either.

There is an old Lebanese saying -- Beware the enemies you chose, because to defeat your enemy you must become him.

Well you are there Keith. Limbaugh can now retire, you have become the biased idiot that he could only hope to have continued to be.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 15, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

THIS JUST IN-----

Cook County Illinois authorities confirm that thank's to a crimestopper tip from internationally known Hillary Drone - SVREADER - a full investigative sweep of all properties in South Chicago - reveals -- NO FROZEN BODIES. Rumors of the infamous villian, the Penguin, roaming Gotham City prove unture.

No one will vote for Obama ???

My God, man - 93% of the African-Americans in Illinois just voted for the guy in the Presidential Primary. And, 57% or all White voters in Illinois voted for him.

Apparently they do not believe that Obama is the Penguin. I suggest that you read the Sun Times (there is a good article in it today by MS Mann), or the re-assertion of endorsement by the Tribune - These are his hometown papers...the voters are his current constituents.

Why don't you turn your considerable free time/keyboard time to an intellectual discussion of the Countdown programs which form the basis of this news article?

Thank You

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | March 15, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

""The forthcoming book "Obama's Slums" contains heart-breaking stories from the families and friends of people who "froze to death" in "Obama's Slums" as well as graphic pictures of the bodies of the victims.""

Posted by: svreader | March 15, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

The very politics Obama and many of his cult followers are suppose to emulate of a less partisan, less divisive nature is hardly championed with the likes of Kieth Olbermann. This is a man who equated Geraldine Ferraro's words with the language of David Duke. (I wonder if he will have a special commentary on Senator Obama's 15 year relation ship with a minister and a church who clearly use race as a manipulative tool?)

I would hope that you would use good judgment and cease your appearances with this man on any program on MSNBC. Like Fox, the stated objectivity of this networks reporting is compromised when it uses individuals with such a clear and hostile partisan intent.

There are so many outlets in which to get informed these days. If the Rush Limbaughs or Kieth Olbermanns of this world wish to rant on, I will find other forums with more interesting and measured individuals who's views and tone I can respect. I will no longer watch Olbermann. Ignoring the views desire puts these many news outlet should be done at their own peril (and many print news are learning the hard way). The same tools that have empowered the 'net-roots' and far right can empower the vast middle on the political spectrum.

Posted by: clawrence35 | March 15, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

From the Chicago Sun Times:

For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side.

It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on.

But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building....

The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found.

"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official. "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''

Eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district....

Rezko and Mahru had no construction experience when they created Rezmar in 1989 to rehabilitate apartments for the poor under the Daley administration. Between 1989 and 1998, Rezmar made deals to rehab 30 buildings, a total of 1,025 apartments. The last 15 buildings involved Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland during Obama's time with the firm.

Rezko and Mahru also managed the buildings, which were supposed to provide homes for poor people for 30 years. Every one of the projects ran into trouble:

* Seventeen buildings -- many beset with code violations, including a lack of heat -- ended up in foreclosure.

* Six buildings are currently boarded up.

* Hundreds of the apartments are vacant, in need of major repairs.

* Taxpayers have been stuck with millions in unpaid loans.

* At least a dozen times, the city of Chicago sued Rezmar for failure to heat buildings.

Posted by: svreader | March 15, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I enjoy your column and appearances on Countdown.

But it appears that cross-promotion has revealed a blind spot. Compare the three interviews of Obama made Friday night - CNN's Anderson Cooper, FOX's Major Garrett and MSNBC's Olbermann.

By far Olbermann was the worst. Questions that could be consider negative towards Obama were delievered indirectly - like asking if Obama expected to have to deal with this issue in the general election and how will he do that?

I bet Billy Crystal wishes he had Olbermann throwing to him the day before!

Olbermann (and the Countdown producers via graphics) made much of the fact that Pastor Wright was no longer a member of Obama's campaign, but said nothing about the implications that Obama has spent more than 17 years at the Church and was married by the guy.

Recall that on Thursday, while much of the media was discussing Obama's pastor, Keith was talking about McCain's pastor and NEVER MENTIONED Obama's issue.

Keith and the show have been a good focusing point and credible place for the left to rally - until now. By being incredibly one-sided he's ruining that credibility. How am I going to relish the next 'Special Comment' knowing now how he only picks certain pieces to support his assertions.

At least Jonathan Alter last night had the guts to disagree with Keith on one point - a rarity for guests. Chris, I hope you'll be objective in your appearences as well.

Posted by: ChuckOp | March 15, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

I stopped watching KO way before his Ferraro - Clinton tirade. The main reason being that he and his guests, appear as though they are in the tank for Obama. Or Maybe they are just hopelessly over zealous. Chris is not as overly biased as most of KO's guests are, so I'll exclude him from those suggestions. I realize that punditry and commentary are not supposed to be real journalism, but you'd think KO would borrow a little of the Fox Noise Channel's line, and try to be a little more balanced. Now that the Reverend Wright videos have surfaced, they have overshadowed KO's commentary of Ferraro. The effects of his commentary are fading away fast and will soon be forgotten by most. It's all moot now. I'm not sure why Chris is praising KO at this time. Ferraro's remarks were tame compared to Wright's. And KO can't blame Hillary's campaign for that.

Posted by: autowx | March 15, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Re: Unity and Division

From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/kosi-fan-tutte.html

Saturday, March 15, 2008
Kosi Fan Tutte: Unity and Division

Thus do they all.

A few thoughts:

There is a time in the life of a new movement when limbic outrage combines with the glimpsed promise of a new and expanded platform. The initial rush from nonentity to prominence has carried them forward together, but standing on that platform, however low or small, the view creates a burgeoning space in the self--a place of surprised importance--first that their voice is heard, then a question of deserving such a place, which becomes affirmed with each passing day that they hold their new small staff--a place where the narcissism of small differences can take over. "Can I?" The internal voice asks. So close to the emotions of the initial rush of emotions, which were felt together, this new rush of emotion must be right. If they can...if they did...if we did...so can I!

Thus do half-formed, ill-considered second revolutions often take place. The first wave was too heady to consider the splinters of emotion, ambition, pride, and how these might combine with actual ideological difference. The move forward was collective, as was the new degree of influence--but the experience of power, however slight, was individual, and could be triggered into the disparate directions seen all too often in the impulsive spatters across time that we, if noticed, call history.

The impulse--anger, wounded narcissism--comes first, quickly followed by a now slightly practiced, or at least slightly observed, ambitious idea. It is then that words and concepts are appropriated, to provide apparent substance and heft to the initial reaction--"strike" or "abuse"; "freedom" or "censorship"; or, in other similar cases, "patriotism" and "nationalism".
Thresholds are set and described after the reaction--a post hoc "it was too much" "we have had enough." Such justifications provide a new form of heady reaction--perhaps the impulse, raw and initially unmitigated, now propped up by the buttresses that follow, not only feels good...but is right!

In such ways does unity often fall apart. The smaller purposes--which we must, we must put forward upon principle, rarely consider the larger principles to which they, often moments before, were firmly committed. It creates the seemingly paradoxical but historically common situation in which a small excitement is able to fully cover a larger objective to create a blind spot, a canyon into which the blinded march with excitement, until the excitement passes, and they survey the terrain around them. We have seen this in 1917, in 1946, in 2002--three examples among countless manifestations across time. Such splinterings typically lead the electorate to search for solid ground in the midst of seeming chaos under "strong", "solid", "traditional" leadership.

Many of those who would today march into the canyon are those who decried Ralph Nader's 2000 stand--who saw the narcissism within the "principled stand", and the larger consequences that such blindness could create.

We have lived under 7 years of an Administration that can be plausibly credited to the excited, impulsive acts, narrowly bounded by limited justifications beyond which was a willed sea of darkness, of that time.

Now, in the acts of a group still fresh with the sense of a new and unexpected influence, we see this phenomenon again: moving impulsively into action, without providing even a full consideration of what it is that they call their act (a "strike" like those taken by workers who give up their jobs and pay?); without providing the evidence upon which they base their claim (to demonstrate the "abuse" would only be to repeat it--or to demonstrate their similar use of language against those that they found unsuitable or unworthy); and without--or perhaps, excitedly, with--a consideration of the consequences.

With self-importance comes actual importance. With excited, elevated action comes consideration of and responsibility for the actions.

We should all be proud of the force that we, collectively, have brought to bear on an electorate that, only a decade before, was far less informed on issues of political and personal consequence. The ease with which our voices can reach into the world can create a more powerful unity of purpose towards overarching goals that we share--or a greater and more rapid ability to splinter amongst our smaller differences.

Take a deep breath. Recognize and appreciate the importance and impact of your role--with the human responsibility that your impact now has, and without the tendency towards defense and excitement that exists in all of us. Consider your stand. Ask what you really want for yourselves and for others in the next four or eight years.

A quickly and tenuously built stand can provide a temporary, if illusory, exhilaration. However, a considered and firmly built platform provides a view that lasts for years, can see over and past the canyons--and beyond for many miles.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/kosi-fan-tutte.html

Posted by: robthewsoncamb | March 15, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

I stopped watching KO way before his Ferraro - Clinton tirade. The main reason being that he and his guests, appear as though they are in the tank for Obama. Or Maybe they are just hopelessly over zealous. Chris is not as overly biased as most of KO's guests are, so I'll exclude him from those suggestions. I realize that punditry and commentary are not supposed to be real journalism, but you'd think KO would borrow a little of the Fox Noise Channel's line, and try to be a little more balanced. Now that the Reverend Wright videos have surfaced, they have overshadowed KO's commentary of Ferraro. The effects of his commentary are fading away fast and will soon be forgotten by most. It's all moot now. I'm not sure why Chris is praising KO at this time. Ferraro's remarks were tame compared to Wright's. And KO can't blame Hillary's campaign for that.

Posted by: autowx | March 15, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

As Obama often said. He is not a perfect man. He will make mistakes like everybody else. Maybe one of them is being associated with Rev. Wright. Do I held him accountable for this mistake? No. Do you held all catholics accountable for their bishop's mistake? NO.

Posted by: bigben1986 | March 15, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama has a demographic problem!

Just saw an issue of US magazine with a 5 page article titled:

See, he's just like us.

The article was full of pictures showing Obama doing the things we all do, black and white. Now, we have to ask the question, did the Obama camp pay for that article?


Posted by: vammap | March 15, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

I quit watching MSNBC when it cancelled Phil Donahue's show (although other shows were lower rated) and hired the lightweight, rightwing Joe Scarborough. After holding that grudge for quite awhile, I finally returned for one reason: Keith Olbermann. I found his style and views refreshing and irreverent. It looks like I may return to my MSNBC boycott, though, because KO has gotten really insufferable with his anti-Clinton rants. KO and the pompous Richard Wolffe have what conversations that demonize most all things Clinton, while ascribing only the best of intentions and motives to Sen. Obama and his surrogates. I was shocked that KO claims that he hasn't endoresed Obama. That would be hard to guess from his shows over the past several weeks.

One aspect of the furor over Ms. Ferraro's comments that has been overlooked is an examination to see if they are true. Yet AGAIN, the press has been led to attack the messenger rather than explore the accuracy of the comments. Surely there are voters who refuse to vote for Sen. Obama because of racism. That's repulsive in 21st Century America. I do wish, however, that the media would examine its own racism and sexism to see if any -- or all? -- of what Ms. Ferraro says is true. What I understood her comments to mean is that members of the media are so scared of being labelled "racists" that they refuse to ask difficult questions of Sen. Obama & his record. And Sen. Clinton -- and more importantly, the country -- have suffered because of this.

Posted by: dcdiablo | March 15, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Olberman rules. Obama rules. O'reily sucks!

Posted by: lumi21us | March 15, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

MSNBC is well known for its smears against Hillary Clinton and her campaign as Olberman, et al, continue to shill for Barack Obama. The problem with MSNBC along with others on the far left and the far right is that they've never been introduced to the standards of professional ethics. Earl Ofari Hutchinson has posted an intelligent response in defense of Geraldine Ferraro that you can read at http://katalusis.blogspot.com/2008/03/merit-badges-due-both-geraldine-ferraro.html

Posted by: ichief | March 15, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Barak Obama knows that Hillary Clinton is not a racist. He knows that Geraldine Ferraro is not a racist. He knows that Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a vile, anti-White, out of control, pulpit pounding bigot.

Barak Obama needs to acknowledge he has allowed his own campaign and supporters to play the race card while trying to throw that sh*t at the other side while hoping it would stick.

Barak Obama was raised by his mother and his maternal grandparents. He was not raised in the inner city, and he probably has no more personal knowledge of what it feels like to be called the n-word than Hillary Clinton does. He needs to stand up and admit to the country who he is and what he believes in. Right now, it's looking like he doesn't care who he is made out to be as long as it works to his benefit.

Posted by: Happy2BMe | March 15, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

4th floor:

Pastor Wright told Sen B.O. in April 2007 to distance himself from his own statements. For 11 months Sen B.O. stubbornly refused until the clip was circulated this past week on udtube. I see it as a judgment issue.What is his campaign's excuse for this 11 month delay, much less that these videos have been available to the public for years even befor Pastor Wright pleaded with Sen Obama to distance himself. What was the problem for 11 months? Why should we be impressed with Sen B.O. being embarrased into this action at least 11 months late, and what does it say about his judgment for him to personally have chosen this clearly divisive person to be his campaign's spiritual advisor in the first place? Is this how he intends to reach out to spiritual voters?

Posted by: leichtman | March 15, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

The worst part about Olbermann is that they have him anchoring the debates. MSNBC and Steve Capus are total disgraces to journalism.

Posted by: bobmoses | March 15, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Keith Olbermann destroyed every ounce of his own credibility with his untethered rantings against the Clinton campaign, followed by his timid, pillow fluffing "interview" of Obama for his undeniably race-inciting mentor/friend/spiritual advisor Rev Wright. If the commentary against Clinton wasn't to be construed as support for Obama, then make no mistake, the soft-sided questioning of Obama on his minister certainly was.

Every other MSNBC TV program had the information on Obama and Wright's year old discussion that they would have to separate their alliances when the angry, racist attitude and pulpit pounding sermons became public. They planned for it, they were not in the dark about it, and Olbermann allowed Obama to sit there and claim he had just learned of the Christmas Day sermon that morning!!

Right. He didn't attend church on Christmas Day. Not one member of the church, and certainly not the Rev himself, mentioned to Obama that his horrid life of discrimination had been the topic of the Christmas Day sermon. Olbermann didn't even attempt to dig deeper on how Obama could possibly have only just that morning heard about this.

Olbermann speaks for no one but himself and Obama. Chris, are you afraid you won't be invited to comment on any other programs? Tell Olbermann to watch the clips of Chris Matthews talking with Rev Eugene Rivers moments before KO talked with Obama on Friday, and the clip of Keith Boykin and Cheri Jacobus on the subject the same afternoon on MSNBC. Both clips are on his own network web site. Get some better researchers and producers, KO. What you have shown as your own character is something I simply cannot associate with.

Obama should have come out screaming that Clinton should not have had to take such a shredding for the media spun interpretation of Ferraro's words and whether there was a proven connection to the Clinton campaign. Instead, he waited to beg for a truce until the tactic stopped working in his favor.

Posted by: Happy2BMe | March 15, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

"I used to look forward to Olbermann's frequent commentary on Bush administration incompetence and arrogance. I had been almost exclusively watching MSNBC for my televised news updates. Now, after continuously demonstrating his clear anti-Clinton and pro-Obama biases, I'm disgusted with him and will not waste my time viewing either KO or MSNBC. He was way soft on Obama in that interview, and clearly the comments in question by Wright are much more inflammatory. Mind you, I'm on the fence between Clinton and Obama...what KO is doing is no different than Fox or other right wing propaganda. I'll look elsewhere for objective points of view."

I couldn't agree more, though unlike this writer I am a confirmed Hillary supporter -- mainly because I think she can win; I believe Obama is far less likely to win in my opinion, just because of things like his pastor problem. He's too new to the scene, and I'm sure more will come out, enough to make it just easy enough for McCain to beat him. As for KO, I'm really disappointed in him, in the clear bias he is showing between Obama and Clinton.

Posted by: rmh625 | March 15, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

With regard to Rev. Wright, the man is not in any way connected with Obama's campaign. What more can Obama do than "reject and denounce"? Is there a new synonym he should have employed when saying the guy is wrong? Ferraro, OTOH, *was* advising Clinton's campaign.

Posted by: tellthetruth | March 15, 2008 07:26 PM

Dude? Where have you been?

"CHICAGO, March 14 -- A campaign spokesman said Friday night that the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., former pastor at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, is no longer affiliated with Sen. Barack Obama's presidential race after coming under fresh scrutiny for controversial comments that the Illinois Democrat called "inflammatory and appalling."

.........

Last month, in a meeting with Jewish leaders in Cleveland, Obama said Wright was "like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with."

But more examples of Wright's rhetoric surfaced this week, including a speech Wright delivered in 2006 at Howard University in which he said: "Racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God." The speech was quoted in an op-ed article in Friday's Wall Street Journal.

In a letter to the Huffington Post Web site Friday afternoon -- and in a later interview on MSNBC -- Obama went further than he has previously gone to distance himself from Wright's comments, while urging voters to judge him "on the basis of who I am and what I believe in."
"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031404218.html?hpid=topnews

He's not in the campaign as of yesterday. And his comments have been out there longer than Feraro's........

Posted by: 4thFloor | March 15, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

The second coming of Howard Cossell (who used to wonder why he wasn't made a Senator by acclamation). Strident, holier- than-thou,know-it-all blowhard. I'm so glad to see the Democrats/"progressives" (Liberals) grooming their own little Rush - why should we have all the fun?. Franken didn't take himself seriously enough, not to mention he was actually funny a lot of the time, to be a jerk's jerk like Limbaugh. But this guy is a 5-tool player.

Posted by: Labbymalone | March 15, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

good post, but i think there's a typo in your opening line; you mean "clown prince rush limbaugh," right?

http://apocalyptickiwi.wordpress.com

Posted by: apockiwi | March 15, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

CC-

What ratings are you watching? The ultra-libs sure love the washed-up former ESPN sportscaster but the general public does not seem to tune in regularly. I bet if O'Reilly read your post, he would probably laugh at such a line of bull you just wrote. Maybe the "fuzzy math" that KO is spewing is about as biased as his show and my opinion FWIW is that you are cheapening your brand by appearing on it.

Posted by: Larsen770 | March 15, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

The funny thing is that Olbermann denies being a liberal. Can you imagine Rush Limbaugh denying that he is a conservative?

At the end of the day, Olbermann is just the liberal version of Sean Hannity, only nastier and more pretentious. Of course, Olbermann thinks he is just a square shooter. Olbermann's belief that he is not a partisan is either self-delusion or willfull intellectual dishonesty.

Posted by: bobmoses | March 15, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Keith is not a sexist just an Obama cheerleader who arrogantly dissembles by claiming impartiality.

Ms. ferraro has said that she, Bill, and Gov Rendell have all been called racist b/c they have dared to challenge Sen. B.O. about the war or his experience. So whenever anyone should dare challenge Sen Obama they are now summarily dismissed as racist. That is beneath their campaign and his message of unity.

Posted by: leichtman | March 15, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

It's only my take, but I feel like a lot of people missed Olbermann's point. To me, his commentary felt more like a plea to Clinton to take back the direction of her campaign from her reckless advisers so that the tone is more positive (and more based on issues). He openly thanked her in the introduction--to me that said a lot about his respect for her.

With regard to Rev. Wright, the man is not in any way connected with Obama's campaign. What more can Obama do than "reject and denounce"? Is there a new synonym he should have employed when saying the guy is wrong? Ferraro, OTOH, *was* advising Clinton's campaign. Clinton could still say more strongly that Ferraro was wrong, but she hasn't. Her call. McCain could still say that Hagee, a man who has ceremoniously endorsed McCain, is a hate-monger, but he won't. His call. At least Obama publicly came forward and said, "Look, I reject this, as painful as it is to repudiate the retiring pastor of my church." He could have done much less. He didn't.

Finally, regarding the notion that Olbermann is a sexist because he doesn't have any female commentators on, ever heard of Rachel Maddow? If you listen to her radio program, she's openly supportive of both Obama's and Clinton's candidacies. And isn't it a woman who often replaces Olbermann when he's gone from the show?

You can't always control the people who speak up in favor of your candidacy and the questionable things they say, but you can control your response. I hear Olbermann pleading with Clinton not to lose her opportunity, not trashing her.

He does trash Ferraro. Rightly so, in my view. He showed she has a history of making outlandish racist-tinged claims. The evidence is there.

Posted by: tellthetruth | March 15, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

I love the narrative that implies some kind of symmetry or moral equivalence between moonbats like Olbermann and the right-wing talkers.

Right-wing radio caught on because the vast silent majority of Americans were positively desperate for an alternative to the leftist hegemony of the mainstream media. Now the moonbats have Olbermann PLUS they still control most of the supposedly legitimate news media. Oy!

Posted by: zjr78xva | March 15, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

P.S. One wonders whether Olberman comments on the Reverend Wright's statements as he did on former Rep. Ferraro's.

Posted by: bn1123 | March 15, 2008 02:08 PM

Exactly. Where is the outrage? Everyone has a motive going forward. And we see what Olbermann's was the other night.

Posted by: 4thFloor | March 15, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

unfortunately you left out a few facts. With Fla B.O. leads by 300,000 in popular vote which will disappear after Pa, and there are 800 uncommitted superdelegates who your side is convinced they can bully but by dnc rules can support whoever they want.
and last time I checked B.O. is ahead in total delegates by 110 delegates not 150 and w/o Fla, Michigan or Pa and one minor point, he is almost 500 delegates short of 2,025 delegates oh and he now has a little judgment issue to deal with.

Posted by: leichtman | March 15, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Olbermann might also want to head a saying also. Be kind to people on your way up because you'll meet them on your way down.

Olbermann has been just on the edge of losing it since January. I think the toxic combination of Chris Matthews, the uber-misogynist, and Olbermann doing the primary reports has unleashed an arrogance rarely seen in a supposed newscaster.

He has been bashing Hillary for almost all that time and even more so than other media given Mr. Obama a huge pass on almost every gaffe, dirty trick, and political stunt. To hear him talk about it, everything Obama does is unscripted, genuine, heartfelt and completely selfless.

Like the rest of the sexist media, he's criticized Hillary laugh, her dress, her smile, and pretty much everything else. He was so anxious to read her obituary on March 4th, that he didn't even notice that Clinton had won RI, was ahead in Ohio, and had pulled even in Texas. Joe Scarborough, yes really Joe Scarborough, had to bring him in Matthews back to earth and point out that the votes were just being counted.

He pursues the Clintons with the same fervor and smugness that he goes after Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

And his credentials for holding sway over all things progressive, you ask? HE WAS A SPORTSCASTER ON ESPN! Clearly there is no better qualification for an editorialist that knowing Mickey Mantle's batting record.

I may be only one person, but I have remove Countdown from my Tivo season pass list, just like I did for Hardball in January. I will bet that I am not the only one who has or will abandon this program barring a major attitude adjustment from Mr. Olbermann.

In fact, I ENCOURAGE ALL CLINTON SUPPORTERS TO STOP WATCHING MR. OLBERMANN. There's nothing he says or does that can be gotten elsewhere.

And Chris, do you seriously think that any so-called Progressives who watch Countdown were supporters of Clinton? Hardly, they've already cast their votes, with a stopover at Starbucks to pick up a Vente Chai Soy Milk Latte, for Mr. Obama. Nice try, though.

Posted by: dclb | March 15, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: leichtman | March 15, 2008 06:54 PM

"Define fair?

My guess it means 100% caucus voting which I am sure you lovebut which is antdemocratic and the piss poor system some states have chosen, and that the superdelegates vote exactly as you demand, oh and lets make sure and give Sen Obama 50% of the Fla delegates he did not earn and refuses to campaign for."

Let's see now; Obama has won the most states; the most delegates (by over 150) and the greatest number of popular votes (by over 700,000). Does that mean he shouldn't win? Hillary cannot win without overturning his delegate lead. The only way to do this is to undo the victories the voters gave him. That's cheating in my book.

Posted by: banshee16 | March 15, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Watching Olbermann is like watching a child
having a tantrum. He acts like a spoiled-rotten kid that needs a swift backhand to the face. He is a typical liberal, full of hate and half-ass truths.

Posted by: cschotta1 | March 15, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

efine fair?

My guess it means 100% caucus voting which I am sure you lovebut which is antdemocratic and the piss poor system some states have chosen, and that the superdelegates vote exactly as you demand, oh and lets make sure and give Sen Obama 50% of the Fla delegates he did not earn and refuses to campaign for.

let's see now; Obama has won the most states; the most delegates (by over 150) and the greatest number of popular votes (by over 700,000). Does that mean he shouldn't win? Hillary cannot win without overturning his delegate lead. The only way to do this is to undo the victories the voters gave him. That's cheating in my book.

Posted by: banshee16 | March 15, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

define fair?

My guess it means 100% caucus voting which I am sure you lovebut which is antdemocratic and the piss poor system some states have chosen, and that the superdelegates vote exactly as you demand, oh and lets make sure and give Sen Obama 50% of the Fla delegates he did not earn and refuses to campaign for.

Posted by: leichtman | March 15, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse


eFF ALL YOU CLINTONIAN BIGOTS & CLINTONIAN PHARESEES!!!

WHO INSTEAD OF LOSING WITH DIGNITY,PREFER TO BURN THE DEM PARTY SHIP WITH YOUR SLIMES AND ENDORSING JOHN McSAME McBUSH


KUDOS TO THE CLINTON SUPPORTERS WHO PUT THEIR PARTY AND COUNTRY FIRST. IF HILLARY WERE TO WIN "FAIRLY" AND I MEAN "FAIRLY," I WILL VOTE FOR HER

Posted by: jsu4193k | March 15, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Is it not the time to stop labeling keith as the voice of the left , surely what was once considered the "voice in the wilderness" has become accepted as the voice for the common man...most now realize it was Bush and the far right who were out of touch with the mainstream , and reality for that matter..keith may be harsh , but he's been proven right by events , and for that matter reality as we now all know it

http://www.longlosthome.com

Posted by: longlosthome | March 15, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

I love it, so called progressives claiming KO is Rush! I love how every males that supports Obama is a sexist. It couldn't be perhaps that Hillary has run a Pi** poor campaign could it? It couldn't be that Clinton has shown the nation the very same scorched earth campaign that we expect from Republicans could it? It couldn't have anything to do with praising the republican nominee over a fellow democrat could it? Fear mongering? No of course it is none of these things, it is because we are sexist pigs that have no brain and couldn't possibly look further than her bra size. Give me a break!

Posted by: botzini | March 15, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

WHAT HAPPENED TO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?

KIETH DID WHAT OTHER JOURNALISTS FAILED AND CONTINUE TO FAIL TO DO WHICH IS NOT SUCKING UP TO THE CLINTONS

HILLARY VETTED MY BEHIND

YOU CLINTONISTAS ARE HYPOCRITITICAL B@ST@RDS PERIOD!!!..........WHINING, "OLBERMANN IS A SEXIST."

CLINTONISTAS, GET A LIFE, ANY SANE PERSON KNOWS KEITH NO SEXIST AND OBAMA LOVES THIS NATION PERIOD.

IF THE MEDIA AND DEM PARTY WEREN'T BEING MANIPULATED BY THE CLINTONS, WHAT POLITICIAN WOULD BE IN A RACE AFTER LOSING 11 CONTESTS IN ROLL?


HYPOCRITITICAL CLINTONISTAS PERPETRATING THEIR DEM ON DEM SLIME!!!

Posted by: jsu4193k | March 15, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

There are differences, and it's been Obama's failure in not dealing with them; so if racism has reared its ugly head as he says, he is partially to blame. And if he did raise the issue, would he in fact be getting as many black votes? We need some statistics, because if he is sending out a black message that appeals to blacks and he is getting 99% of their vote, than he is certainly leaving a lot of people out of that message.

Posted by: vammap | March 15, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Keep up the good work, Keith!

I was undecided for a long time between the two candidates, but the Clinton camp's campaign over the past month has swung me decisively over to Obama. Remember, the campaign is the only chance you'll get to see the candidates run an administration BEFORE you elect them. Everything they do on the campaign trail sets a pattern for their behavior in the office. Look no further than Bush/Rove 2000 for an illustrative example.

I am really looking forward to the general election between Obama and McCain. Whatever else you can say about him, McCain is a man who managed to maintain his personal integrity through a very difficult campaign in 2000. The slime directed at him, particularly in South Carolina, made the Clinton/Obama dustup look like milk-and-coookies time. I just don't see McCain running a harshly negative campaign against Obama -- I think he has too much integrity to do that.

Hopefully Obama will put the race away soon so we can focus on the general election. I expect to see a race where the candidates actually respect each other, ala Clinton/Dole in 1996.

Fortunately, we have nowhere to go but up...

Posted by: jerkhoff | March 15, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

sounds like you are playing the victim card, something I was lead to believe your campaign would never do. Who cares what his race is, its 100% irrelevant. His policy positions, judgment and lack of experience as a US Senator are reasons enough. Two sundays ago the New York Times lead story was why US Senators believe that Sen Obama has accomplished very little as a US Senator(their story not mine). Is the New York Times now racist for daring to raise that issue?

an no one ever said that Keith didn't love this nation so calm down, we just said that he is in love with the Obama movement and should be labeled as an Obama supporter, somethig he hypocritically refuses to do.

Posted by: leichtman | March 15, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

I have to agree with many of the comments that are piling up above. I began watching MSNBC thinking it would be an alternative to Fox. I have stopped watching because of the blatant bias of Olberman and others. Chris- I respect your objectivity and hope you find a better TV outlet.

The two recent statements by supporters provide a good example of bias. MSNBC is, at best, treating the Wright and Ferraro incidents as equivalent and even saying that Obama responded better. Ferraro committed a gaffe in the way she stated the obvious fact that race is playing a role in the campaign, probably on both sides. However, the venom of Reverend Wright is far worse and this story is just beginning to play out. I think Obama will have to go further in his rejections. If he doesn't, the gap in PA may grow and even NC may become competitive.

Posted by: holler1wv | March 15, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

EVERYONES PASTOR SOMETIMES SAY SOME OFF THE WALL STUFF.

YOU CLINTONISTAS ARE HYPOCRITITICAL B@ST@RDS PERIOD!!!..........WHINING, "OLBERMANN IS A SEXIST."

CLINTONISTAS, GET A LIFE, ANY SANE PERSON KNOWS KO IS NO SEXIST AND OBAMA LOVES THIS NATION PERIOD.

ALL YOU BILLAMANIACS NEED TO TAKE A CHILL FREAKING PILL!!!

ENOUGH WITH THE DEM ON DEM SLIME

Posted by: jsu4193k | March 15, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the truth of every word Keith Olbermann said. I do not happen to believe that Obama is any kind of flawless savior for us all, but compared to Clinton and McCain, he is the only hope this country has. Clinton's management of her campaign has perfectly shown us what kind of chief executive she would be. She distorts the truth whenever it looks like that will benefit her, she has tolerated racist statements, she has proposed changing the rules after agreeing to them, she has completely misrepresented herself. I would vote for a woman as president if the right woman were running, but Hillary is the opposite of everything I hope for in a leader. Obama is the only choice left.

Posted by: Arjuna9 | March 15, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

I am a huge fan of KO. I also agree wholeheartedly with what he said. Clinton has envoked a double standard in the campaign and I hope voters see through her act. In addition, why are people always talking about Obama being black? I NEVER hear anyone say anything about him being half white or being raised by his white mother and her white parents. I think Obama has class and tact (qualities we SHOULD WANT in a leader). I have yet to see him go ruthless on the Clintons, yet, if you read some of these comments, its as if people hate him because he IS black. That's most disturbing.

Posted by: tismyseason | March 15, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Ironically RACE is now the cornerstone of his campaign. He said this in today's LA Times:

"That's the only way that we're going to deliver on the big issues we're facing in this country. We cannot solve healthcare divided. We cannot create an economy that works for everybody divided. We cannot fight terrorism divided. We cannot care for our veterans divided. We have to come together."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign16mar16,0,3871376.story

The messaage is one thing, the reality is another: he's not pulling in Latinos, Aisians, Jews, women, lower income, he's pulling in Blacks, Republicans voting against Hillary and the ultra Liberals of the party.

How can he unite us when he's been influenced and under the moral direction of a man who hates whites and hates America? It couldn't be more disengenuous.

This is like a junkie who keeps lying about his habit, but keeps the routine up because its part of his lifestyle, it's ingrained and if there's an intervention, like in this case, there has been an intervention, he is forced to kick the habit.

Obama didn't kick this bad habit until extreme public pressure was brought to bear. He didn't consider before the fact, that aligning himself to such a man, would go against more than half of the nation.

GIVE ME A BREAK!!

Posted by: vammap | March 15, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I used to watch him, but, he has gone the way of O'Reilly on FOX.

He has lost his sense of fairness and I am thoroughly disappointed and will no longer watch his show.

I am now 1 less listener..no, make that 2. My husband, an American Indian (full blood Navajo), says to tell Keith that he no longer respects him and that he too will no longer watch his show.

It looks as though these guys go off the deep end and get the big head when they start getting good ratings.

They start skipping down the yellow brick road and end up on the broomstick.

Posted by: ztormtra | March 15, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are weird, Democrats even more so. They almost make me want to respect Ralph Nader, but I have to draw the line somewhere. The absence of much practical difference on policy between Obama and Clinton seems to add to the bitterness and not reduce it. Each side appears puzzled, frustrated, and frenzied about the failure of the other side to get out of the way. Do the people who attack Obama and his supporters or who attack Clinton and her supporters prefer another Republican in the White House instead of the "wrong" Democrat? Apparently so. Whatever happens in November, I plan to change my registration to independent. Or maybe to Republican. I can get peevish too.

Posted by: faheydm | March 15, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Keith Olberman is so pro-Obama that he practically cries if he loses a race or if anything not totally complimentary is said. He has only Obama supporters on his program and he is very tiresome to listen to these days. At one time, we enjoyed his program but lately he has been so pro-Obama that it is actually disturbing to watch him. My friends and I have stopped watching and I'm sure his program is beginning to see a decline in the numbers of his audience. He is not liberal...he is bitter. You can't be funny or entertaining when you're bitter. NBC executives should watch his program sometime. They should be appalled at his blatant one-sided coverage of the presidential campaign. Chris Cillizza is right there with him. Very unprofessional.

Posted by: hazwalnut | March 15, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Chris raises an improtant point here. As an independent, I'm watching the reaction to this week's news cycle very closely. Senator Obama said early on in his campaign that President Reagan was a transformational figure. President Reagan was not only trasformational he was teflon as well.

Senator Obama aired all of his dirty laundry this week: Rev. Wright, earmarks, and Rezko. So I will be looking to see if these issues end up sinking his campaign, or if he ends up brushing these kinds of controversies off like President Reagan and President Clinton did.

This will tell me how strong a candidate Senator Obama is and how strong a President he will be. Every President has to face a controversy, scandal, or has to make an unpopular decision. My question is which one of the remaining three candiadates can confront problems and still remain popular with the American people?

Posted by: desmondwebster | March 15, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

I am not a Progressive, whatever the hell that is. I'm a Liberal.

You can tell from my background. When the Vietnam War and the draft arrived, I didn't hide under the bed or get my daddy to hide my butt in the National Guard. I went to the active duty military.

Like George McGovern in WWII. We're Liberals.

I don't know about this new progressive species. I suspect it will become extinct. No spinal column.

Thanks much. HLB, Mt. Lebanon, PA

Posted by: HLBeckPE | March 15, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

thuff: so I guess you HATE the Clintons and feel that George W Bush should have been re-elected in 1992. How was your job situation and income b/w 1992 and 2000, mine was certainly better then, since you are convinced that Bill Clinton did absolutely nothing for the economy? and it sounds like the Hillary conspiracy theorists have come back to join us this sat.

Posted by: leichtman | March 15, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

kathleen we are filling out our little nielson book this week and haven't and won't include Oberman in them. Could you imagine Walter Cronkite going on the air and in the middle of a story and during an election period going on and on about how wonderful one candidate is? I'm OK with Oberman and Mika promoting Obama if they wish, I would just ask that they keep a running box under their names saying Obama Supporter Keith Oberman and Daughter of Obama Foreign Policy Advisor. Saturday Night live was right on the mark. Its time for Keith to return to Sports Center where that kind of cheerleading is more appropriate. this is not about a North Carolina basketball game, Keith.

Posted by: leichtman | March 15, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

At last someone in the media gets what I have been saying for over 15 years. I was a staunch Democrat until the Clintons came to town. They are posers and fools. They are consummate liars who have left a stench on the Democratic party. If the internet bubble didn't blind everyone with wealth, he would have been the worst Democratic president in history.

Posted by: thuff7 | March 15, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Hillary only needs to weaken Obama so much that he loses to McCain. The 2012 democratic nominations is then hers.

Posted by: OscarMayer2 | March 15, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

I am a long time watcher of countdown. I respect Olberman as an intelligent, well read, and articulate commentator. He speaks his mind and uses reason as a motivating force. He provides a great counterpoint to right wing media.

His critics seem now to be Hillary supporters and conservatives. That's enough for me to commend him. Both those groups are now showing their lack of ability to debate civilly.

Has it occurred to some of you that the truth lies with Olberman? It's difficult not to show bias toward the intellectual view when you are intelligent. Should he simply accept stupidity and call it equal in validity to intelligence?

Posted by: banshee16 | March 15, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

chersplace, March 15, 2008 03:51 PM,
posted a video of a Wright sermon where the Minister claims Bill Clinton treated African-Americans the way he treated Monica.

At the conclusion of the FOX newsclip, we see Barack Obama standing surrounded by caucasians, mainly young blondes, at another venue.

While it is an obvious splice job, the real question is whether FOX splice it, or whether "chersplace" spliced it.

Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | March 15, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Keith... AMEN!

Posted by: AverageJane | March 15, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Really interesting the way Olbermann passes this off, not as Clinton's failings, but as her listening to poor advisers.....Sorry, but if she doesn't have the judgment in selecting or disregarding her advisors, and if she really is listening to them here, that shows not only critically poor judgment, but simple weakness as well.

Posted by: Seytom1 | March 15, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

My thoughts are similar to others who have posted here. I admired Olbermann for speaking out against Bush's policies when others seemed fearful. At the same time, I squirmed a bit at his "good night and good luck" signoff and from time to time his obvious admiration of himself was hard to take. It seems to me that his opinion of himself as a "truthteller" in the Murrow mold is starting to become a caricature. I've been especially troubled by his overwrought attacks on the Clinton campaign. In disclosure, I am a Clinton supporter, but not an especially passionate one. I have many problems with her, but for the most part I think she has the abilities to be an excellent President and I decided she would be a better choice than Obama. that said, I certainly admired Obama. Some of his more fervent supporters (believers) not so much. However, in my opinion Olbermann's attacks have been over the top. It seems that he has tried to muster the same outrage that earned him ratings when it was used on Bush in his criticism of Hillary Clinton. I think in the end he has mostly succeeded in trivializing his own broadcast.

Posted by: matthew_sylvester | March 15, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, New Hampshire

Posted by: celested9 | March 15, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I stopped watching Keith after New Hamshire. I did it because he piled on Hillary along with his fellow cable commentators.

Keith, you are not Edward R. Morrow successor.

Posted by: celested9 | March 15, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

I too used to be a big fan of Keith's but it is soooo obvious that all the talkers are totally in the tank as OBAMABOTS.
Chris Matthews even get tingly. I think the 'Special VOMIT" that he did on Hillary was such a cheap shot - hit job. Involing works like Daivd Duke - Pa leez....The he interviews Mr O and is calm and quiet and asks nice gentle questions. Yalks with Jonathn Alter and says " Is really just having the cameras on that make Rev. Wright so vocal.Where is all of the red faced emotion Keith??
Chris, you really hurt your credibility by being in that mutual
admiration society with the Hillary Haters.
Ed Shultz is a gas bag too!

Posted by: marshamots | March 15, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama's entire campaign is based on using the Republican hate-on for Hillary to rack up cross over voting in caucus states. Frankly, that makes Obama less than ethical.
It couldn't be more double-standard, because he is taking advantage of what is a hate inspired vote and using it to win himself.

Posted by: vammap | March 15, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Sadly the brain dead Olbermann has been influenced from his participation in sports.

In sports, it's acceptable, if not desirable, to trash women. Black men, however, are treated as gods.

This has probably influenced why Olbermann's been fellating Obama like his sack holds the cure.

Can we get someone intelligent to be our left wing pundit? How about a woman? It's insane, I know, to listen to a woman, but it just might work.

Posted by: Alan5633 | March 15, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

I have been a very big fan of Olbermann's for a long time. But saying that he has not endorsed anyone may formally be correct, however, it has been obvious for a long time now that he is in the tank for Obama.

Posted by: harlan.louis | March 15, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

This rant is ridiculous! This Keith fellow fancies hearing himself blab! The sexist and racial innuendo in this campaign started w/the Obama campaign. Be real, Ferraro and Clintons have been known for their good black relations and initiatives for years. F.G's comments as usual were taken out of context! For the amount of Senatorial experience Obama has, he would not have have reached this point had he been other than black is Ferraro's "opinion" that many people share. Obama's pastor remarks and 20 year relationship w/Obama is a little bit more disturbing re: racial supremist, sexist and negative context to the US...
This primary is challenging, given the historical context of the candidates and the emotional level of the supporters for their candidate. We have freedom of speech and people are speaking out. This media requirement for apology/denouncing/firing cycle is absurd..Conversation and different points of view are what we need. The Democrats are having a rare opportunity to have a full primary season and a Presidentional candidate decision made in Denver. I hope that the DNC rectifies their bad judgement call regarding MI and FLA so that all Democrats can have all votes count. That is actually what disturbs me most.

Posted by: laurenr1 | March 15, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Say it ain't so! Finally people are catching on to the bias reporting of MSNBC and their anchors. I haven't watched Keith Olberman since the primaries held on Feb 12th. He is so pro Obama it is sickening. I used to love watching Keith because he reported facts and kept opinion out of his show. The guests are all pro Obama and the "Barbie" dolls on MSNBC reporting on Obama drool like lovesick teenagers talking about a teen heartthrob. Now that it's out that Obama lets a racist preacher guide him in his religion, it's down right scary how he would be as president. We've had eight years of a president only representing one sect of America. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will definitely be casting a protest vote for McCain in Nov. 08!

Posted by: jeiken | March 15, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Countdown was a favorite show until all of the men started going after Sen. Clinton. I stopped watching six weeks ago; and, will not watch the show again.

I wonder if MSNBC has noticed a drop in the number of viewers who watch the evening shows? I was never a fan of Hardball; however, I did enjoy Countdown. I couldn't be the only woman in America who feels this station has gone too far in promoting Obama.

The President of the United States is the most powerful position in the World. Obama has very little experience and should not be the next President.

Every time anyone gives a valid question about Obama's past and lack of experience, they are labeled as a racist.

The World is now suffering because of Bush's lack of experience. And, when anyone questioned Bush's policies, they were labeled as being a traitor. I can't stand the thought of going through the next four years with doubters being called racists.

Although I won't vote for him, John McCain will be our next President.

Posted by: kathleen4500 | March 15, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

I love watching Keith, but I think everybody is getting way too hot and bothered over all this. It is a campaign, for crying out loud. There's no place and show in this race.

There are minefields in both political parties that make REAL discourse impossible. Ferraro may have been inarticulate, but she's probably right to enough of an extent to make what she was talking about is worthy of discussion, not vitriol.

Posted by: BPINZ | March 15, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Harry4.... Very well said... hear, hear!!

Obama is the only one of the three that gives us a chance to drain the DC swamp we call government.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | March 15, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I cannot tell you how sick I am of hearing whites expound on how insulted and upset blacks should be over various racial attitudes and comments that have surfaced during this primary season. I am black and female and no one has adequately described how and what I feel or know. I cannot and most of my friends, black and white, cannot be easily defined and categorized. That's what makes us so unique as a nation. We all come to our own conclusions independently. We are not a nation dictated to by our press.

I was proud at the beginning that race and sex were not an issue in the campaigns. But I guess the print, electronic, and the audio and video news industries cannot sell enough or attract enough people to their product without these divisive controversies. They had to bring sex and race to the fore. The American people seemed not willing to get into it. They had side stepped these two issues because the important thing was to get GWB out of the White House and downgrade the power of the ultra-conservative, over-religious right who have done grave and lasting damage to our nation. "The People" were ready for a real political fight. The media wasn't having it so. They wanted blood. Now they have it. They are contributing to the Democrats tearing themselves apart and raising a race divide and a sex divide that I never dreamed would happen.

The press has successfully pitted the rich against the poor, the blacks against the whites, the blacks against the Latino, the young against the older, the educated against the less educated, and the coffee drinkers against the rest. You just couldn't leave us to just pick a presidential hopeful based on the issues, could you!

Posted by: clk30 | March 15, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Sorry again, somehow it's accepted, to rag on women, on her; she is the resceptacle for hate that Obama should understand. But, he's not doing it himself, he's letting others do it for him. He has created a real conumdrum for himself. He said the campaign should be civil and all of a sudden white guys are coming out of the woodwork defaming Hillary. It's all a scam to beat her numbers down...

Posted by: vammap | March 15, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

KO is like a doting mama watching her brat in the play yard.

MH

Posted by: cornfield | March 15, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Kudos to KO for taking a chance, and calling out something festering and potentially lethal to ALL Dems.

I admire him for taking a chance and calling the "Elephant in the Room." I once admired Hillary, but have been troubled by her campaign tactics, and believe she'll take this politics-as-usual style with her to Washington, given the chance.

Her campaign HAS been cleverly divisive, using the race card. All it serves is to split the Dems, and guarantee McCain the White House.

Someone in the media had to call it.

I'm glad KO took the chance.

Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | March 15, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me I meant proslytizing from the political pulpit...I don't know which is worse...Obama's reverend or Ober's pure hate rant...the message is clear, let's not let out of the bag that Obama is black, in fact let's ignore that he lied about Rezko, let's just tear Hillary down, because, after all, she's a white woman...and someone that's acceptable in our society.

Posted by: vammap | March 15, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Olbermann's an air-head sportscaster who's been whoring for Obama since Day One. (Maybe he's confusing him with Tim Duncan.) Replace him with someone with a better handle on politics, like Dan Marino.

Posted by: threedy | March 15, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

The past couple of months I have been getting more and more disenchanted with KO. The anti-Clinton theme has become just too much for me. At least I can turn him off with one simple click of my remote. I know of two other households that are also taking advantage of their tv controls. Hmmm, I wonder if their is a trend here??

Posted by: kjbj47 | March 15, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Spin. Spin. Spin.

All that so many bloggers can do is parrot talking points. Sexist? Sheez, anyone who isn't 100% for Clinton is sexist because she's a woman. That is the real sexist attitude. Get a life!

It's just as racist to attack those who oppose Obama as being racist.

I used to think that Clinton represented a real opportunity to take back the White House. As soon as she mouthed the words, "35 years of experience" I began to doubt. I began to support Edwards and Biden and Dodd and Richardson, not because they're men but because they weren't treating the primary race as a coronation and were being (for a politician anyway) very straight talking.

Like so many others, I saw Obama as an intelligent person who gave great speeches but didn't show up so well in the debates. I expected American racism to doom him like all that preceded him. I had voted for Jesse Jackson in that primary so long ago.

After lots of lies and sleazy campaigning and the attitude of "I earned it" from Hillary, I hoped that Edwards would make it. Then, I went to an Obama rally. Michelle was there; Caroline was there; Oprah was there. I met lots of people.

Maybe I am a "cockeyed optimist," but I hunger so deeply for a new beginning after all of the horrible Bush year, the accommodate-big-business years before that, and the awful Reagan-Bush years, I'll take what I can get. I choose not to have a Democratic version of Reagan, or Bush I, or Bush II or a rehash of Bill or any of the rest of it.

I hope that Obama is exactly what he projects himself as or at least will become it. Give him a chance. We all need it.

Posted by: harry4 | March 15, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

porterhouse4 | March 15, 2008 02:23 PM

Said that Olberman has very low ratings. That is completely false. He has consistently over 750,000 people watching him every night, which is more than Lou Dobbs, double of Chris Mathews, and soon will surpass O'Reilly.

Posted by: thinkbeforeyoutalk | March 15, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Talk about speaking from the pulpit: Putrid stuff; reeks of the same hate speak as Obama's Pastor. Cant' imagine he or MSNBC will gain anything from this other than turning people off to them and to Obama, who seems to have all sort of white men speaking on his behalf.

Posted by: vammap | March 15, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

I use to look forward to hearing Olberman's comments about the Bush administration and the other blatant faults in our political scene. When I watched the hit job he did on Clinton I could not believe he was not working for Obama.

Until I hear a similar piece on Obama's ties to the Rev Wright I will never listen to a word he says again. It is amazing how it took two days until the main stream media picked up this story. Despite Wright stepping down this is not going away. You can not say with a straight face that in 20 years you never heard him talk this way when you sat in a 'pew' in his church. How about when he was sitting across from you at your dinner table Barak?

HOPE AND CHANGE JUST WENT OUT THE WINDOW SIR.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 15, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Sorry to say, but Keith has become as much of a blowhard as Hannity and O'Reilly. He has become enamored of his own voice and words and thinks of himself along the lines of Edward R. Morrow. I followed him nightly when he went after the Bush administration because no one up to then had actually challenged this criminal administration as strongly as he did. However, he is in tank for Obama and clearly his soft-peddle interview with him
was pathetic. Had that been Hillary he would have drawn blood. I no longer watch MSNBC because of Matthews, Scarborough and now Olbermann. A shame since the progressives needed a voice in the wilderness but all we got in return was clear bias. The so-called MSM needs to put out an APB for objectivity. It has certainly gone AWOL.

Posted by: PatJ | March 15, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Your article is a total reach, as someone who watches Countdown, I would not equate him to Limabaugh in terms of influence. Is it because you make appearances on these newsprogram that you are overstating their influence? Furthermore, all of these individuals are Obama supporters, which you seem to be. I can assure you we do not get our cue from these inside the beltway blowhards.

Posted by: y2kidd | March 15, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Still in Denial, Clinton Supporters?

Yup.

You are still in denial.

Posted by: cowyard | March 15, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Overall, an excellent set of comments. Chris Cillizza wrote a nice, compact note on KO's slight rant. I think Keith was over-zealous, maybe blindly disingenuous in his uneven response to both Democrats.

What I am most concerned about is what Keith, Chris, Mika, et al will do when the inevitable "dirt" on Sen. Obama comes to light. We're certainly seeing what I hope is _not_ the tip of the iceberg, the video of his pastor's angry sermons. Even is this was absolutely all news to Barrack, imagine if the Republicans had found this and decided to release this stuff the week before the general elections were Barrack to win the nomination. We'd have four more years of too much Bush-themed nonsense.

Keith, please report and comment from your usual big-picture perspective. That is always, always appreciated by so many.

Posted by: rdepontb | March 15, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Keith Olberman and his cohorts at MSNBC are clearly dissapointed when their dog, Sen. Obama failed to close out the deal in Texas and Ohio.

They make too much on the remarks of Miss Ferraro and again blame Sen. Clinton for it.Everything bad is Clinton and everything good is Obama.

Now, let us see if Olberman will make a special comment on the Reverend Wright fiasco. Let us see if Olberman, Matthews and other gasbags at MSNBC can extricate their dog from this problem.


Sad to say but the race is over and the Sen. Obama and his believers are the losers.HE IS DONE AND HE WILL TAKE DOWN OTHER DEMOCRATS WITH HIM.

If the crazy democrats allow him to become the nominee, you can be sure that the republican 527's will be airing the rants
of Jeremiah Wright everyday.

Posted by: tim591 | March 15, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

To chersplace:

That definately looks like Obama.
However, there was a cut in the video just before that and I don't know if it's from the actual sermon. That needs to be confirmed - looks a little bit too perfect?
But if it is, it's a problem for Obama who has said he never was present when hateful sermons were held.

Posted by: joakim.ottosson | March 15, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of MSNBC.... does anyone know why Tucker is gone? By choice, I hope. I enjoyed his show and thought he presented a pretty balanced perspective as an admitted conservative.

Does anyone watch "Morning Joe"? The mornings of March 3 and 4 it was obvious the show had its marching orders... promote Hillary. And they did, "big time!"

And speaking of March 4, shouldn't Rush's encouraging ditto-heads to crossover vote for Hillary to mess things up for the Dems primary be prohibited. That comes too close to the line of trying to fix an election... which he may have.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | March 15, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I've been following politics since JFK ran for president, and have seen the way it has changed over the years. The money people, corporate america, have always bought influence in washington, but not until Bush Cheney was corporate america able to occupy the white house. I have seen the way the media have become more powerful over the years as well, and I have also seen corporate america buy and own the media. At this point almost everything we see, hear and read is controlled by corporate america.

Enter Kieth Olberman. I watch countdown every night, and since I watch through the eyes of a skeptic I question and research almost everything that is said. I can say without reservation that Keith presents as factual a report as anyone ever has. I have not witnessed sexism, racism, or partisanship in any way other than being liberal. He speaks truth, as much as his corporate owners will allow, to power, and he pulls no punches. In his commentary, he has called Bush a bald face lier, a traitor, and a facist to his face, all of which is true. I have heard no other reporter with the courage to do so. With his commentary on Hillary Clinton, he was trying to get her to see that in her over zealous efforts to stop Obama, by shooting at the tires on his bus, she is shooting the tires on the bus that the eventual democratic candidate is going to have to drive to the election. Her blind obsession for reaching the top, could end up arming the real enemy, the republicans, with what they need to win in november. Kieth knows that a democrat in the white house is far more important than which one. She needed a slap in the face and he gave her one. He has proven himself, by his reporting, to be a corageous patriot, that puts the good of america befor the good of any single individual, group or himself. For those on here that do not watch his show, and venture comment, they put themselvs in the same catagory as Rush Limbaugh, which is the business of offering opinion on something they know nothing about. Keith is the closest thing we have to truth in media, and we not only need him, but many more like him. Keep up the good work Keith.

Posted by: TRACIETHEDOLPHIN | March 15, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Olbermann and most of the liberal media are in the tank for Obama. That would be reason enough alone for me to vote McCain if Obama wins.

People, we need to teach the media to stop abusing their power to influence and to instead report the news fairly.

And if it were Hillary involved in Rezko, you know every major media outlet would be covering that relentlessly.

Eff you media for abusing your power.

Posted by: Alan5633 | March 15, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Well, Olbermann has now made it obvious that he doesn't know any more about politics than he knows about football. Maybe he should try teaching kindergarten, where he could bully the little kids into accepting his point of view. Adults don't need his pompous, self-righteous bombast.

Posted by: qball43 | March 15, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

KO demonstrated his failure to adequately assess events related to Clinton in his special comments admonishing her for not clearly indicating where she stands on race. The three major points he made as basis for his condemnation were spurious. Then, he neglected to consider that her life work has involved her in unpopular causes for people of all ages, races, and gender. She registered Latinos to vote, supported the civil rights movements for blacks and women, opposed Proposition 187 (an anti-Latino ballot initiative in California) at times when all were unpopular. She went abroad and championed the cause of women, the world over; that's over half the world's population and more black and brown than white. This was regarded as overly assertive behavior. She also championed the cause of children, while getting mocked by Republicans for her audacity in asserting that it takes a village to raise a child. She's taken on so many unpopular causes that she's gotten a reputation for being a radical feminist, unfit for office. Since most of the people she has tried to help cannot even vote for her, it's obvious that she's more than committed to equality and justice for all. Fortunately, the people of New York saw her qualities and opted to support her twice for the US Senate. Now, all of us can support her for president of the US. KO (and others) needs to do some real investigative reporting rather than innuendo-based assertions packaged as a non-biased effort to ensure a clean campaign. We need more people in politics who will commit unpopular acts to benefit struggling people. Comments such as those rendered by KO against a person who has such a record are totally unacceptable.

Posted by: bjbprice | March 15, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Substitute the word "Hillary" for the word "white" in Ferraro's statements to see how intellectually dishonest she's been to frame Barack as running against not Hillary but an ideal white.

Posted by: jhbyer | March 15, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

The difference is that Limbaugh admits his partisanship while Olbermann and other liberals in the press lie and say they aren't liberals or partisans. Are they ashamed? Why do they lie about something like this?

Posted by: ikez78 | March 15, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enMWfQl_Qeg

I wonder if anyone else watching this video of Reverend Wright noticed the man at the end of the video. It looks to me like this is Barrack Obama.

I would like anyone else's view on whether or not it is. You can only see it on the very last frame and have to stop and start it to actually get a still image to look at. Anyway, I would love to know what others think.

Posted by: chersplace | March 15, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Although Dr. Wright's sermons are inflammatory, they are provocative and causes one to reflect upon and examine the sociopolitical, socioeconomic, and sociocultural policies of this country on a domestic and global basis. These sermons also causes one to examine his or her American experience and role in this dynamic society. Much of Wright's rhetoric may be compared with that of Rev. Pat Robertson and the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, who both have made controversial and inflammatory comments throughout their lifetimes. Yet, our society appears to have given "a wink and a nod" to these spiritual leaders for years. Each of them has had relationships with presidents. Yet, there has not been a great outcry or scrutiny of their relationships with former and current presidents. Why now? What is all the fuss about? To this end, it appears that all of the news organizations have run statements/video clips made by Dr. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of Sen. Barack Obama, but have not run statements and/or video clips made by the Revs. Rod Parsley and John Hagee (endorsers of Sen. John McCain) who have made openly racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Catholic, and homophobic comments. Also, there is no playing of the anti-Semitic comments made by the Rev. Billy Graham to President Richard M. Nixon at the White House over 30 years ago. Graham has also had relationships with presidents, including Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, etc. Is this "fair and balanced" coverage? Why is this okay? It appears that the Revs. Hagee, Parsley, and Graham have been given a pass by the MSM. It appears also that the MSM is complicit with the "establishment" in trying to marginalize and to undermine the campaign of Mr. Obama. It is difficult and mindboggling to comprehend that a person of color can fight and die for this country, but not serve as the president of this country. It is also difficult and mindboggling to comprehend our fears of divergent world views. Wright, who is a former marine and former nurse for President Lyndon Baines Johnson, delivered these sermons based upon his sociopolitical perspective and do not necessairly represent those of Senator Obama's anymore than the views of Sen. J. William Fulbright represent those of President Bill Clinton. Thank you Keith Olbermann for having the courage to allow Senator Obama to use the platform of your show to speak and to be heard by others.

Posted by: miracles365 | March 15, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Olberman's show has become predictable: same guests all the time (Richard Wolfe, Jonathan Alter, Dana Milbank, Rachel Maddow, Chuck Todd, Howard Fineman, et als) - all in agreement with Keith's anti-Clinton views. Predictability soon becomes "boring." And now onto Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears............

Posted by: Johnconnor6 | March 15, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Keith is the best to emerge from the media in my long life. I love the Cintons, for themselves and their service, but in defeat they've proved ungracious to the point of disgrace. They apparently can't imagine that Barack has won for qualities she lacks. This is only human. It's the job of her staff of 700 to keep them from suicidally parading their self-protective delusions about darker skin giving Barack an advantage despite our American history. That they failed is sadly par for a badly managed campaign.

Posted by: jhbyer | March 15, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

REV. WRIGHT WAS HIS PASTOR, NOT A SUPPORTER ON HIS CAMPAIGN. GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT.

People comparing Wright's comments, which were to his congregation (not the press, not on behalf of Obama), to Ferraro's comments, which were in a prewritten speech to the press (and quoted in multiple other places, in context), are completely nuts.

Besides, Obama has harshly condemned Wright's words and has even written an op-ed about how disgusting the comments were and how far they are from Obama's opinion.

Thus far Clinton has not apologized for Ferraro's comments, she has not rejected them from her campaign message and she wasn't even going to fire her from her finance committee. No, she has instead made excuses and only allowed Ferraro to step down when she realized her accusation of the entire United States of being racist was going to damage Hillary's campaign.

I have only seen KO a few times but I have to say, after seeing this....THANK YOU.

No one in the media has really addressed the extreme insanity of Ferraro's comments, as well as Hillary's complete support for the comments. Hillary clearly thinks the world is racist and sexist against white women (hah!) and that everyone is out to get her.

Just this morning Clinton sent out an email saying her supporters have "told every little girl (In America) that she can be anything she wants to be." Really, Hillary?? Is that what this campaign is about? Telling one gender that they can do anything? I'm sorry but you cannot on one hand accuse Obama of running some sort of Affirmative Action campaign and then at the same time put out an Affirmative Action message of your own for women.

I also like how the same person has repeatedly posted here that KO is a "sexist bastard" in multiple comments so it seems more than one idiot is claiming this.

Posted by: thecrisis | March 15, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

It's funny maybe I'm crazy, but I think that everyone is overreacting to both Ferraro AND Wright's comments.

1) Both have a history and legacy of building society and people up, not tearing them down and are having a tiny percentage of their life's work used against them

2) People are transporting their words and ideas into a new context that suits an agenda. By casting them in a certain light, rhetoric can be built to make one's point. If instead, we tried to see the point of their arguments, we'd realize that they are not made in a poor spirit at all.

3) Rev. Wright may exaggerate for effect (he is a preacher), but saying something like GD America - for a specific action - is essentially just a strong way of condemning that action. Should we praise American for killing people, or seek to criticize with the agenda of doing good?

4) Ferraro's comments are entirely fair as she offers commentary on the current race that is similar to a CNN analysis - Barack is relying on a constituency that includes the black vote. This implies nothing about his qualifications as she herself said, merely that without that aspect of his constituency, the more liberal white voters on his side would not be enough for the nomination.

Posted by: kemurph | March 15, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

I used to look forward to Olbermann's frequent commentary on Bush administration incompetence and arrogance. I had been almost exclusively watching MSNBC for my televised news updates. Now, after continuously demonstrating his clear anti-Clinton and pro-Obama biases, I'm disgusted with him and will not waste my time viewing either KO or MSNBC. He was way soft on Obama in that interview, and clearly the comments in question by Wright are much more inflammatory. Mind you, I'm on the fence between Clinton and Obama...what KO is doing is no different than Fox or other right wing propaganda. I'll look elsewhere for objective points of view.

Posted by: heatmiser | March 15, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

For anyone of in a sane mind to think Keith Doberman is not in Obama's camp, they must have taken a sip of the Kool-Aid. If he was anything but dishonest, he would have forced Obama to be more truthful. How can Obama really expect people to think he was not aware of his Pastor's "sentiments" oh, he thinks everyone drank the Kool-Aid. Some of us have not, and that is why we know he was lying. Wasn't Obama opposed to appearing on FOX, I guess not. What is that saying again? I guess he is only doing what he has to do to win.

Posted by: maggieb4360 | March 15, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Speaking as a middle-aged woman, I find accusations of media sexism against Clinton laughable. Was the media sexist when she was inevitable--before a single vote had been cast? Was it sexist when it withheld a critical story on the Clintons when Bill threatened to cut off access? Is the media sexist when it still falsely reports that Clinton, rather than Obama, won Texas?

Olbermann was spot on in this commentary on Hillary's handling of the Ferraro fiasco. It is a piece of the whole. Rather than saying why she should be elected, she falsely attacks Obama and promotes McCain as a better commander-in-chief than the possible Democratic nominee, Obama. It seems clear that if she can not win the nomination, then she will ensure that Obama loses the general. Never mind the destruction to our country; she'll then be able to run again in 2012.

So spare me the "Oh, the sexist media is so unfair to Hillary!" b.s. This is one woman that cheered Olbermann's articulate message to the Clintons. If they care about their legacies, they should pay attention.

Posted by: kurtrk | March 15, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

And again, where is the information about McCain's church? Hillary's church? Why aren't so-called journalists delving deep into their personal lives too?

We want to know what McCain's preacher said. We want to know why he flipped relgions. He deserves the same kind of scruitny as Obama. At least as much. He's had a lot of trouble with ethics over the years.

Posted by: drindl | March 15, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Ever since his first special comment segment, I have not missed a show. However, I am disappointed in his obvious bias towards the Obama campaign. I don't remember it being this pronounced 2-3 months ago. It may have to do with him defending the MSNBC (Shuster and Matthews) gaffes or it's simply that he hates the Clinton campaign (not the candidate but the people surrounding her - like Wolfsson, Mcauliffe, and Penn).

Posted by: ptp_er | March 15, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

I usually like Keith...but he is employed by the same company that has had to apoligize to it's viewers twice for inappropriate comments they've made about the Clintons. I agree with everything Ferraro has said about Obama...100%, If Obama were a white man...with the same record he wouldn't have gotten this far. If Hillary had only 1 1/2 years in the senate and ran for office...she would have been labeled power hungry. The media has been a sleep when it comes to Obama...Keith can you fluff up that pillow you give to Obama.

Posted by: tmcinroy | March 15, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

"Does anyone really believe that Obama NEVER heard of his pastor's statements prior to this week or only heard about one or two of them? Come on!! I am NOT am active member of my church and I am 100% SURE if my pastor had ever said that the federal government is giving black people HIV; spreading drugs; or is responsible for 9/11 I would have heard about it.

He is also stating he was NEVER there when Wright made remarks that were so inflammatory..what about his wife Michelle? Was she there?"

Someone will now find proof that Obama was in fact present on at least one occasion when the pastor went off railing against the US or whites or whatnot. In 20 years of asociation with that church, it strains belief for Obama to claim Wright as his "mentor" and inspiration for his book and spiritual life yet have ZERO knowledge of such outrageous, unpatriotic, hateful sentiments and statements of the man. A WW-II analogy could be quite appropriate.

This affair could destroy Obama's credibility as a trustworthy candidate. His patriotism and that of his wife were already in question by many, many people, and this will just worsen that public perception. Obama should never, ever have backed himself into a corner like this. What a disaster.

Posted by: hyperlexis | March 15, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

I watched KO's rant about Hillary and it just begs the question, like so many others here have raised, will he do the same toward Barack for Rev. Wright's speeches. Apparently not.

If he had that much passion in his rant toward Hillary, where is the anger toward Obama for not immediately denoucing Wright and taking him off his African American Religious Committee, until days later, which was KO's point about Hillary not taking a hard stance?

It's very hard to believe that after 20yrs Obama wasn't aware of this America hatred by Rev. Wright? After 20yrs never heard of such sermon from the man who performed his wedding. After 20 yrs never heard from a fellow church member about "oh did you hear what Rev. Wright said the other day in church". Then to denounce the Rev. days later and then take him off the campaign ONLY after ABCnews aired that video. Yeah, I guess he wasn't aware.

So, where is KO on this one?

Posted by: dmoralestx | March 15, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Olbermann is a pompous, arrogant man who relishes repeating he is like Edward R Morrow. How arrogant is that self description?

As for a leader of progressives, only place he leads is on progressive bloggers hate sites. You are right comparing him to Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. Thanks.

Posted by: Realitycheck6 | March 15, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Ferraro said some stupid and vicious things, which deserved to be repudiated. Clinton didn't do it fast enough to suit me, but at least she did it. McCain has not repudiated the hateful words of the preachers Hagee and Parsley. Why not?

Obama has repudiated Wright. Again McCain actively sought out the support of men whose reputation he knew quite throughly fro many years -- so thoroughly that he once called them 'agents of intolerance.'

He is a hypocrite, a phony, and a flipflopper. And the press still kisses his butt, because he handfeeds them bits of barqued meat-- and they wag their tails obligingly.

Posted by: drindl | March 15, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

To bwvr:

* Did Hillary listen to sermons by Ferraro every other sunday - for 20 years?
* Was Ferraro Hillarys inspiration in spiritual matters?
* Did Hillary write a book and borrow the title and phrases from a speech given by Farraro?
* Was Ferraro the pastor when Hillary married bill?
* Did Ferraro baptize Chelsea?

Posted by: joakim.ottosson | March 15, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

I find it amazing that no one has gone out and searched for and vetted the sermons of Clinton's pastor (do they even attend church?), McCain's pastor, or even our currrent President Bush's pastor. As usual and typical in this country people of color are held to a higher standard and as we see with Hillary's campaign, that standard changes and gets set higher and higher with each passing week where the delegate total remains the same and her chances of victory continue to diminish. How many of us have attended church services, have not heard thier pastor say something that you disagreed with. I for one have, but does the overall benefit of the services and guidance provided by a church organization get negated because your pastor may make some statements you do not agree with? I am just curious and I also wonder when people of color will truly have an even playing field. This campaign is proving to many of us what our parents who grew up during the time of Jim Crow and segregation is that we still have to be twice if not three times as better than our white counterparts, we have to be double and triple vetted, before we are deemed worthy enough to hold the top spot or rather be seriously considered for the top spot.

Posted by: merch61 | March 15, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Barack OBama's entire campain has been predicated on having better judgement. How good is his judgement when he spends 20 years of his life following the teachings of an anti-american, anti-jewish racial bigot he's proud to call a very close personal and family friend. What kind of judgement did he use when he exposed his childen to those teachings.
G. Ferraro was exactly right in what she said if you look at the entire interview and not just one sentence. Barack OBama is were he's at today in the race for the democratic nomination for president because the black community has a representative that produces great pride and excitment from that community and beyond. We should all celebrate the opportunity this county is finally giving to Barak, its been way too long coming.

Posted by: jmfromdc | March 15, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Olbermann is certainly no more 'biased' than any invidual on Fox News...yet people still pretend that they are something more than a freak show. Rush Limbaugh was a disc jockey -- how is he qualified to be a commentator?

Why is the media so soft on Cindy McCain? Imagine how outraged the public would be if Michelle Obama had become addicted to pharmaceutical heroin [for several YEARS] and stolen it from a children's charity? Especially if she had been the bookkeeper in the Keating Five scandal at the time?

But she's a rich white girl, so she gets a pass.

Posted by: drindl | March 15, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

I find it astonishing that on a day when everyone is interested in hearing about Obama and Reverend Wright, you choose to drag out old news, Keith Olbermann and his anti-Clinton rant. A lot has happened this past week and Ferraro's comments have if anything been validated by the week's events, which you just ignored.

Posted by: Vnd22 | March 15, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Ferraro, is engaging in a high risk game that could endanger everything the dems gained in 2006. By taking a tone similar to Rush and company regarding race she risk alienating black voters who already feel taken for granted. Do you think Ohio, Virginia and Pennsylvanian would have Democratic governors without a healthy black turnout? Senator Jim Webb (the tie breaking win for the Senate) would certainly not have his seat if the Black vote in VA was even 1% less. That's whats at stake.

Posted by: case.boone | March 15, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

JamesSCameron, it's difficult to understand the disconnect because there just can't possibly be one.

How could this guy be Obama's spriritual advisor for 20 years without Obama knowing the guy was a racist america hater?

The fact that Obama chose to build such a strong relationship with him says something that Obama could never admit on the campaign trail.

Posted by: Alan5633 | March 15, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

bwvr, you are being willfully blind here. Ferraro's role was very minor. she'd raised a little over 100k for hillary. anyone who did that was called a financial chair.

Wright, on the other hand, has been Obama's spiritual advisor and mentor for 20 years. Why would Obama choose to build a strong relationship with someone who hates whites, hispanics, and jews?

Posted by: Alan5633 | March 15, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Olberman is no proper newsman. He's a smarmy, blow-dried hack who preaches to his viewers and, like a four-year-old, occasionally throws papers off his desk to show some purported emotions to the camera.

This is not what a news anchorman is supposed to do. Walter Cronkite would produce better quality news in the bathroom than the information proffered by Mr. Olberman.

As for his outrageous, inappropriate and biased ravings about Mrs. Clinton, I think it would be best if he simply came out wearing his Obama button and tell people exactly why he so supports Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain.

A news reporter is supposed to present an unbiased, unslanted presentation of the news of the day.

Mr. Olberman is unable to fairly do so. He should not be sitting in that chair.

Posted by: hyperlexis | March 15, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I watched that clip. Reminded me of why I no longer have a television set.

Most people think this campaign is about the economy, the war, health care, the environment. Fringers seem to think it's about race or religion or gender. The media as usual think it's about who's ahead in the polls and about how they can maybe flip things around so they're not bored by this time next week and in the week after that.

Anyway in the fall, I'm voting for whichever Democrat wins. They both seem to be worthy candidates capable of the job of President, as does Senator McCain, but I'm voting for a sweep-out of the administrative branch of the US government this time around. Enough is enough.

Posted by: gracelet | March 15, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

3. Obama has "denounced and rejected" Wright's statements and has removed him from any role in his campaign.
-----------------------

As dictated by political needs. It remains to be seen how Obama could have been so oblivious to Wright's views. These were not off the cuff remarks; rather they were clearly deeply ingrained and passionately communicated at his sermons. It's difficult to understand the disconnect.

Posted by: JamesSCameron | March 15, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Why do people insist that Rev. Wright is of the same stature in the Obama campaign as Ferraro was in the Clinton Campaign?

Rev. Wright's former position in the Obama campaign was as the head of the Committee of African-American Pastors. When he made offensive comments, he was not acting as a spokesman for Obama. Despite his minor role, Obama immediately removed him from the campaign. That's what Obama does, he removes people who make mistakes.

Ferraro, on the other hand, had a MAJOR role with Clinton. She was a chair of Clinton's fundraising committee. When she made the offensive comments, she was speaking on behalf of the campaign.

What was Clinton's response? To disagree with the statements. She NEVER removed Ferraro. Ferraro continued repeating the same statements for days afterwards. Eventually quitting. Again, Hillary NEVER removed her.

To compare Ferraro to Wright is ludicrous.

Posted by: bwvr | March 15, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons have a long and distinguished history of helping and serving the black community, we are talking decades.
Obama shows up and all of a sudden gets 80-80% of the black vote.Why ??? talk about ungrateful.

Posted by: snapplecat07 | March 15, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone really believe that Obama NEVER heard of his pastor's statements prior to this week or only heard about one or two of them? Come on!! I am NOT am active member of my church and I am 100% SURE if my pastor had ever said that the federal government is giving black people HIV; spreading drugs; or is responsible for 9/11 I would have heard about it.

He is also stating he was NEVER there when Wright made remarks that were so inflammatory..what about his wife Michelle? Was she there?

Posted by: ericr1970 | March 15, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

If anything Hillary addressed the Ferraro comment better than Obama addressed the Wright comments. How else can you explain the Olbermann's going much harder on Hillary, than to say he's a SEXIST B*ST*RD?

kms62, if anything Hillary gave a stronger response. You had BOTH OF THEM giving lukewarm responses at first. Then you have BOTH OF THEM giving a different response after they found out what had been said. Except in Hillary's case, she apologized to black people even though she had a much weaker relationship with Ferraro than Obama had with Pastor Wright. Also, Pastor Wright's statements were much harsher than Ferraro's.

Also, Obama didn't apologize to white people, jews, and hispanics for the Pastor's awful statements.

Olbermann should have been harder on Obama than Hillary, yet Olbermann did just the opposite.

Why, I would have to guess that it's because Olbermann is a sexist bastard.

Posted by: Alan5633 | March 15, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

WATCH HILLARY SAY KEITH IS OBSESSED WITH HER SOON, AND THAT THE LEFT-WING-MALE MEDIA-CONSPIRACY ARE OUT TO GET HER. "PHONIES FADE FAST"

Posted by: jsu4193k | March 15, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Olbermann is a wacko nut sack !! He blames everything from his Square head to stubbing his toe on the coffee table on George W. Bush !! To all the people who take him seriously....HE IS A SPORTSCASTER!!!

Posted by: maddogjts | March 15, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

I don't think the comparison of Olbermann with Limbaugh is a valid one in this case - or really any case, because I think dems generally are much more independent minded than repubs are. And many dems are noting his tough treatment of Clinton in comparison with his kid glove treatment of Obama. I used to be a big fan of Olbmermann's, but that has really turned me off.

I would gladly vote for either Clinton or Obama, but the press's double standard treatment of them has made me prefer Clinton, at least for now. I know she is deeply flawed, but MSNBC's egregious treatment of her simply because she's a woman (which I what I believe this stems from) compared with their rah rah cheerleading for the also seriously flawed Obama simply makes my blood boil.

Posted by: ccatmoon | March 15, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

I'm a "female commentator (sic)," and I don't think Keith is sexist. However, I'm not always a regular watcher, so perhaps I have missed some glaring examples....do you have any specifics, Alan5663?

I agree with KMS62, I think that Olbermann was specifically criticizing Clinton's HANDLING of the Ferraro situation, and not blaming Hillary for the original comments.

While I find both Wright's and Ferraro's comments despicable, there is a stark difference between the statements:
1. Ferraro was speaking specifically on BEHALF of the Clinton campaign to the media. She was acting as a representative.
2. Wright made his statements prior to serving on Obama's campaign. He was not a representative.
3. Obama has "denounced and rejected" Wright's statements and has removed him from any role in his campaign.
4. Clinton has stood by supporters of a certain status (BET founder Robert Johnson and Ferraro) and has refused to ask them to resign or to strongly condemn the statements. Considering her attack on Obama over Farrahkhan, this is very hypocritical.

I think the fact that Ferraro has DEFENDED her statements consistently is just another stab in the back. She should have just faded into the woodwork, but her continued justifications and her statements regarding Jesse Jackson really paint a bad picture.

I think Olbermann has a lot of respect for the Clintons---as evidenced by his thanking them at the beginning of the rant. I think he takes issue with the campaigns' responses and failure to act convincingly to censure these types of attacks. He's right, Hillary's people are not helping her here.

Posted by: hillmannic | March 15, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Poor, oppressed "progressives"! No outlets presenting their points of view until EdSchultz.

Except, of course, for ABC, NBC, CBS, WaPo, NYT, LAT, AP, and five thousand other news sources. It even includes... Nickelodeon:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007547.html

And, of course, since Chris Cillizza is a "semi-regular" guest, don't expect him to "follow the money". While I've never seen the Olbermann show, it seems like he's little more than someone who reads whatever MMFA writes, with the latter having links to Clinton and also having received Soros money.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | March 15, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

SEXIST? REALLY? YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME. VERY TYPICAL OF CLINTONISTAS, ANY MALE WHO ISN'T FOR CLINTON, OR DOESN'T AGREE WITH HER IS A SEXIST. PITIFULL!!!

Posted by: jsu4193k | March 15, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

The fix should also address the Obama/Rezko thing.

A guy who's been accused of bribing politicians bought a piece of property next to Obama's house to ensure his privacy, yet I am to believe he wasn't promised anything in return by Obama?

The media needs to quit giving Obama the kidglove treatment and do some digging here. I want to know the truth.

Posted by: Alan5633 | March 15, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

I felt that Olbermann said what needed to be said. Clinton is being manipulative with the media and Olbermann said it straight. Now Clinton has distanced herself from her surrogate gone wrong and Obama from his. But there is still a double standard out there, because there are questions about Clinton that won't be vetted until it is too late if she were to win... like all the financial ties to shady characters and deals including Burkle, Khazakstan, Saudi Arabia that are hidden in those tax returns and unreleased records. The bad surrogate game could go on endlessly... just think of Bill's indescetions and Cindy McCain's addiction/drug theft and you could think of a million more ways to discredit the Hillary and McCain campaigns. What Olbermann was saying was that this is not the kind of campaign that Democrats need, but Hillary keeps bringing up the sleaze and then crying when it comes back to her. Stop it Hillary. Let's get a good end to the primary where we look at the candidates truthfully, including their record. I don't think Hillary wants people to look closely at her record and her possible personal ethical breaches, but I think we had better know which Democratic candidate has the most skeletons in the closet. Of course, I think that is Hillary.

Posted by: goldie2 | March 15, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Olberman's ratings have been rising steadily. Too bad the wingers cna't handle the truth.

Now that Obama's relgion has been put under a microscope, how about McCain's?

To even pretend to be more than a unified republican attack machine, the media needs to scrutinize McCain's relgion as closely as it has Obama's. Who married McCain? Who baptized his children? What did they learn in Sunday School?

Why did he, as a lifelong Episcopalian, switch to the North Phoenix Baptist Church [pastor Dan Yeary, formerly of the Coral Gables Ministry] when he decided to run for President?

'The Arizona senator, according to the Associated Press, answered a question about how his Episcopal faith affects his decision-making by saying, "It plays a role in my life. By the way, I'm not [an] Episcopalian. I'm Baptist."

McCain, as recently as in a June interview with McClatchy newspapers, has consistently described himself as an Episcopalian. He was raised in the denomination and attended the prestigious Episcopal High School in Alexandria, Va. Biographical sketches in several well-known congressional directories -- information that is usually provided by members of Congress or their staffers -- list McCain's faith as the Episcopal Church.'


Posted by: drindl | March 15, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

This guy is amazing.
He rips Ferraro apart - for a comment that is questionable, and rightly should be critized.
But then - he throws softballs at Obama in a controversy that is much worse. Pathetic.
Speaking of which: When is The Fix gonna mention the "Obama/Wright-thing" that seems to dominate every blogg in the Western world?
Or don't you think it has any news value?

Posted by: joakim.ottosson | March 15, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

kms62, if anything Hillary gave a stronger response. You had BOTH OF THEM giving lukewarm responses at first. Then you have BOTH OF THEM giving a different response after they found out what had been said. Except in Hillary's case, she apologized to black people even though she had a much weaker relationship with Ferraro than Obama had with Pastor Wright. Also, Pastor Wright's statements were much harsher than Ferraro's.

Also, Obama didn't apologize to white people, jews, and hispanics for the Pastor's awful statements.

Olbermann should have been harder on Obama than Hillary, yet Olbermann did just the opposite.

Why, I would have to guess that it's because Olbermann is a sexist bastard.

Posted by: Alan5633 | March 15, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Can we please get some female commentators? Olbermann is a sexist b*st*rd, in my humble opinion.

Posted by: Alan5633 | March 15, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Olberman has become to the left what Rush is to the right: an embarrassment. Amazing how you, Chris, only now noticed how anti-Clinton he is. Have you not watched his program for the past 2 months? He never, and I mean NEVER says anything positive about Clinton, while everything Obama does is the most wonderful thing on earth. The same is now true for the majority of Air American and the Jones Network radio personalities. It would be interesting to see a report done on when this pro Obama movement on the left began, and who was funding it. Oh, and by the way, Olberman is a sexist jerk.

Posted by: thinkwithyourbrain | March 15, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

All I know is that these charts show more people checking out Hillary than Barack in PA and a massive change in the nation as well;

Pennsylvania Primary- Hillary vs. Barack:
The Google Factor...

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=57

She just may have a chance... but a tough one for sure.

Posted by: davidmwe | March 15, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

KO no doubt has tingles for Obama


and Chris, KO check the actual ratings, KO's ratings are down

Posted by: newagent99 | March 15, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

I support Hillary as the technocrat vs. Barak as the motivator but I'll give Keith his props. So many "journalists" handle the Regime with kid gloves to avoid losing their precious access. Keith ain't afraid to smack down Legacy Boy.

I'll take Keith on faith that Geraldine (who I voted for) needed a trip to the woodshed but while you're handing out whuppin's, Barak' pastor could use some too.

Posted by: willandjansdad1 | March 15, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Countdown used to be one of my favorite shows but I have not watched since MSNBC has become more anti-Clinton than Fox. To date, they have had at least 2 apoligies and 1 suspension so it's just not imagination. Matthews and Olbermann in particular can barely contain their disdain for Hillary (and Bill) Clinton all the while getting all tingly for Obama. Sickening. It's too bad when Fox is more fair and balanced.

Posted by: spinut | March 15, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I still watch Olbermann, but get mad every time he loads up his show with pro-Obama pundits.

The comparison to Limbaugh is dead-on in more ways than one. Like the right-wing radio, it is compelling because it makes me so angry.

Posted by: lawrencehecht | March 15, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Oberman is a breath of fresh air on television. He speaks the truth. I was indeed deeply moved by his commentary under reference here.

Keith is not trying to be divisive. He is simply trying to make us think before we behave like Ferraro or acting like a Republican like Hillary Clinton.

Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have actually damaged themselves by their own reckless comments. Bill was a good president and he should try to keep his rhetoric checked.

Posted by: hsnkhwj | March 15, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Olberman had a scoop last night.... he had Obama on the show for his first interview on the Rev. Wright dustup. Obviously Obama thinks highly of Olberman. Olberman came in to do to the inverview even though he was home ill, and left shortly after.

Olberman's influence is widespread, and while he injects humor, he's also cutting-edge informative, his intelligence is refreshing.

As long as Hillary has SNL and other major media in her pocket, and McCain is the hold-your-nose darling of Rush and his ditto-heads.... progressives need a spokesman. Olberman is a spokesman to be proud of.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com


Posted by: Truth_Hunter | March 15, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Keith Olbermann has offered a refreshing new look on politics, at a time when many of the so-called analysts just regurgitate talking points from the various campaigns. He has the courage of his convictions, and raises issues to our attention that are often ignored by the rest of the media. Bravo Keith, keep up the good work!

Posted by: kmcnyasha | March 15, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

What a load of happy H.S. Olbermann, by employing the tactics of his erstwhile nemesis O'Reilly and Fox Noise Channel, has become a parody of himself. I'm through with him.

Posted by: washpost | March 15, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Alan5633,

Olbermann was commenting more on the response to the comments than the comments themselves. Both the pastor's and Ferraro's comments were inappropriate, but Obama moved decisively to cut his offender out of his campaign and out of the loop, while Clinton's response was at best belated and lukewarm. A candidate can never totally control what people associated with him or her say, but it's their decision how to react and respond to whatever their associates say. That is what Olbermann is primarily criticizing Clinton for, NOT the comments themselves.

Posted by: kms62 | March 15, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

Your journalistic integrity is impressive. By stating that "Countdown has become one of the most watched programs on cable television, you have ignored the obvious and flat out lied on your "posting". It may surprise you, but the latest TV ratings for cable news show Olberman at the very pathetic position of being just ahead of Nancy Grace and Chris Mathews, lagging millions of viewers behind the "highly rated" cable news programs. It would have been accurate to state that Countdown is the lowest rated cable news program in its time slot. But then that would reflect reality, and we all know the left can't deal with reality.

Posted by: porterhouse4 | March 15, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I concure with you Chris. KO HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ELDERS SEEMS TO LACK THE COURAGE TO STEP IN AND DO THE RIGHT THING AT THIS MOMENT. I STILL LOVE CHRIS MATHEWS BUT HIS BEEN TAMED MY THE CLINTONS TOO. KO SAYS WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID TO WHOM IT NEEDS TO BE SAID, AGREE OR DISAGREE. I RESPECT THE GUY.

I am an Obama supporter of course but I used to respect Bill Clinton, and would have voted for Hillary if she won fairly ( pledged Delegates), but they now epitomize narcissism and power mongering, its too disgusting.

Posted by: jsu4193k | March 15, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

EFF OLBERMANN. He delivered a scathing criticism to Hillary for what Ferraro said. But then was incredibly soft on Obama when his pastor's crazy racist, america hating statements surfaced.

How do you explain that? OLBERMANN, IN MY OPINION, IS A SEXIST B*ST*RD.

Posted by: Alan5633 | March 15, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

By actively involved in hardening the fronts between the Obama and Clinton camps and playing into the fanatics on either side, Olbermann has contributed to the intra-Democratic war.
Unless both candidates declare and both camps observe a cease-fire, McCain will be the ultimate winner:
http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2008/03/clinton-obama-c.html

P.S. One wonders whether Olberman comments on the Reverend Wright's statements as he did on former Rep. Ferraro's.

Posted by: bn1123 | March 15, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company