Keith is a public figure.  He should explain what he meant.  This comment is vile.  Will you EVER let your children ever making a comment like this about another person, let alone, a man aboout a woman?  

The worst thing about media's treatment of Hillary Clinton has been the manner they have done it.  It has been vile, misygenust, disgusting, and has insulted all of us women each and every day.  

I do think it's impossible to separate out the increasingly common threats of violence from some men and the fact that Hillary is a woman.   As Melissa McEwan has pointed out before, you cannot separate Hillary Clinton from her womanhood and saying things like you want to punch her in the face, punch a woman in the face, comes with all of the baggage of the culture just as calling Obama "Boy" does.

These guys were the voice of the Democratic party. They showed how to be fighters, and had the guts to stand up for what they believed and speak their minds. They helped speak fopr a lot of Dems that had no voice.

Cut to present day: Olbermann and Moore have showed us that they have no interest in the Democratic party. They only have the vision to guarantee their choice for President makes it all the way to the WHite House. The problem is that they are tearing apart the same party they fought to unite.

By attacking Hillary (and not attacking Obama), Olbermann's playing Dem against Dem. He is a traitor of the worst kind. One who has a daily audience to preach his hate to.

This statement is not sexist, as I don't think it is only applicable to females.

It is indicative of the major problem with the media. They seem to be a collection of clowns, unfamiliar with the subjects about which they speak.

I hope everyone on here is now aware that DEMOCRATS no longer have any credibility on democracy, voting rights, or any of those much vaunted democratic principles. Pride goes before a fall and the recognized Democratic leadership has now proven what the Republicans have been saying about Democrats all along.

Keith Olberman, whatever he meant, should be made to state unequivocally what he meant, with PROOF. Why do we always have to determine, or tease out, the meaning of these people's words? They make a living on their words.

Sexist?  Probably a little.

Really stupid?   Yes.

A call for murder?  No way.

This was obviously a stupid, not well thought out statement. But at the very least, he did indeed imply intimidation of a serious nature. Hopefully just verbally. But intimidation of the variety you find in a closed, locked room where only one comes out after the deed is done.

Where is the DNC?  Why isn't it as an organization and Howard Dean as its leader calling for this blatantly threatening behavior to stop immediately.  Where is Obama?  The great communicator is not saying a word to bolster his image of hope and unity, which apparently excludes women. He continues to hide behind his wife's strong character because he has no morally persuasive strength of his own. At least his notorious pastor has the courage to say what he thinks, no matter how odious.

I suspect that Olbermann and the rest of the Frat Boyz no longer see any reason why they cannot talk to their audience the way they talk among themselves.  Thanks, Keith, but there's only so much of your reality people will tolerate; knowing that this is who you are off-camera makes me see your character in a whole new light and feel really sorry for the women you, um, date.

I think Clinton should also agree to this proposal from Obermann.

Steyn recently termed the Super Delegates "timeserving party hack" which is exactly what they are. If Clinton and the SD were in a room having a "frank and open" exchange of ideas she would quickly convince 'him' of what the facts really were.

We should say,

Dear Editor,

Keith's statement that "insert exact statement here" was a bit ambiguous.

I am not sure whether Keith meant that Hillary should be murdered by this male superdelegate or just beaten badly enough for temporary or permanent paralysis.

Would you please ask Mr. Olbermann to disambiguate the point he was making, so we can ascertain whether to picket MSNBC or picket every single cable provider that carries MSNBC.

Hopefully you will understand this dilemma and will reply soon.

Thank you for your time.

Dear Editor,

One of Keith Olbermann's recent discussions with Howard Fineman included a statement about the need for a superdelegate to "take [Clinton] into a room and only he comes out."  

Unfortunately the statement was a bit ambiguous. I am not sure whether Keith meant that Hillary should be murdered by this male superdelegate or just beaten badly enough for temporary or permanent paralysis.

Would you please ask Mr. Olbermann to disambiguate the point he was making via tonight's show, so I can fully understand the intention of his desire for violence against the Senator from New York and legitimate candidate for President of the United States.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Hyperbole, possibly sexism.

..................this is back firing they are calling Clyburn the word was not true.......and tied it to Hillary resurgence and the obvious PA narrative Obama cant win in Nov theme
And this as the optical slander it is

backfire but its getting coverage

we should all send Obama campaign and our Newspaper editorial a thank you note for this continued Obama campaign sleaze personal and Party negativity while contrasting it with the incredible empowerment of Hillary positive campaign and camping messages and pride for Party and Country of her candidacy.

I haven't, however, participated in the Dem process to select a presidential ticket and will vote based on conscience.

Jeralyn said that Dems should choose their ticket, and that cleared away a lot of the fog for me. I'll can support the candidate I see as best suited for the job, period.

I profoundly disagree with so many of the tactics that have muddied, gamed and distorted the process so far, eg, "Dems for a Day", or heavily pressuring any group to fork over their votes to "higher ups" to ante up in deals, [:: groan ::] astro-trolling, and so forth.

None of the above is illegal, but combined they're what's stifling a rational, sensible process of choosing leadership. It shouldn't cost billions. People shouldn't have to count based on what they can pay. They shouldn't be roped into a ridiculous, poisonous campaign season ballooned to YEARS.

And no, despite the hype, Obama has done nothing to resolve this, only exacerbated the process with his shifting and hinky primo-divo antics. (Sen Clinton merely held that she can play the game AS IS and win at what's already in place.)

(But the bottom line is, Jeralyn was right. Dems and Dem voters should choose their nominees. Belated props for blowing away a lot of the fog on this.)

I immediately blasted off two to three protest letters to MSBNC -- once again, no doubt ignored because I'm so used to complaining about their programs.  I also complained about David Shuster's cackling Hillary pen, and his error during a segment of Hardball yesterday in which I think I heard him claim that Obama "voted against the war."  I was in another room at the time, but I'm pretty sure Shuster made that claim, and like Anderson Cooper who has also used that language, I wrote an attempt at correcting the record.  Obama never voted for or against anything.  He was not a member of the U.S.Senate.  He gave a speech, in 2002, supposedly resisting the war (and so did Hillary by the way, in which she argued against preemptive war and for more inspections but the media chooses to forget that and twist her words).  Both Anderson Cooper and Shuster are lying.  Obama never `voted against the war' because he had no pending legislation, being a member of the state senate in Illinois, which by the way, apparently only meets 55 days out of a year.  When he got to the Senate, he voted "for" the war.  

Honestly, I have my tv (muted) on FOX just to hurt them because they are always jealous of FOX's ratings.  Check out --tvnewser.com

I saw some of the other blogs saying that KO is calling for nothing less than her murder.  Well, if he advocating that a superdelegate, MALE, take her into a room and only HE comes out, one can infer that he advocates violence towards Hillary.

Chris Matthews is the same. CNN isn't much better.